Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35720204›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Free Your Mind, Not Your Flap.

Alexander D Neusner, Julian J Pribaz, Lifei Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander D NeusnerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.
Julian J PribazDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Fla.
Lifei GuoDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pedicled flap has been a mainstay of soft tissue reconstruction since the earliest days of plastic surgery. Advances in surgical technology and skill have led to an erosion in the use of pedicled flaps in favor of increasingly popular free tissue transfers. Still, regional flaps without microvascular anastomosis remain a valuable reconstructive tool. Although still requiring microsurgical skills, these flaps are of particular benefit in patients with few or poor quality recipient vessels, in those who cannot tolerate antiplatelet therapy, and in those who cannot tolerate the often-extended anesthesia time necessitated by microvascular anastomosis. Furthermore, pedicled flaps may significantly reduce total cost of a reconstruction procedure with similar outcomes. In this case series, we report challenging scenarios where microsurgical approaches may have been typical choices but were instead reconstructed by pedicled options with desired outcomes. Difficult soft tissue defects were successfully reconstructed with a variety of pedicled flaps. Soft tissue transfers to the abdomen, flank, shoulder, and back are presented. None of the reconstructions required microvascular anastomosis.

Identifiers

PMID35720204
PMCPMC9200385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.