ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2023
Patient-Reported Lower Extremity Outcomes Following Fibula or Medial Femoral Condyle Free Flaps for Upper Extremity Defects.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fibula flap versus soft tissue flap with reconstruction plate for mandibular stage 3 medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: a retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Medial femoral condyle free flap for reconstructions of medication related osteonecrosis of the jaw.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 2026Article
- Medial Femoral Condyle Free Flap: A Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-analysis of Applications and Surgical Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFree fibula flap (FFF) and medial femoral condyle (MFC) flap are commonly used for upper extremity osseous reconstruction, yet donor-site morbidity has never been systematically compared.
methodsPatients who underwent an FFF or MFC for upper extremity extra-carpal osseous reconstruction at 3 academic hand centers were retrospectively identified. Only patients who underwent reconstruction for a defect in which either flap type is routinely used or has been described in the literature were deemed eligible. Patients who agreed to participate were asked to complete the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) and Lower Limb Core Scale (LLCS). The reported population norm median score of LEFS is 77 points. The LLCS population norm mean score is 90.52 points.
resultsTwenty-one patients (10 MFC, 11 FFF) were enrolled. The median LEFS score for patients after MFC was 76 (interquartile range [IQR], 49-80) points and 75 (IQR, 56-79) points after FFF. The median LLCS score for patients after MFC was 96.4 (IQR, 87.9-100) points and 100 (IQR, 91-100) points after FFF. Median LEFS scores were slightly below the population norm, whereas median LLCS scores were above the norm for both FFF and MFC. All patients stated they would have the surgery again and that any dysfunction or pain in the leg was justified by the benefit in the arm.
conclusionsWhen considering whether to use an MFC or FFF for upper extremity reconstruction, both flap types appear to result in modest and comparable donor-site morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.