ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Objective Skin Quality Assessment after Reconstructive Procedures for Facial Skin Defects.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Periocular Reconstruction in Facial Trauma: Surgical Approaches and Multidisciplinary Perspectives.Cureus · 2025Review
- Application of novel strategies in chronic wound management with focusing on pressure ulcers: new perspective.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Review
- Simplifying Forehead and Temple Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Full-Thickness Skin Graft from the Submental Triangle for Facial Defect Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Association between the Level of Advanced Glycation End Products and Objective Skin Quality Parameters.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Local random skin flaps and skin grafts are everyday surgical techniques used to reconstruct skin defects. Although their clinical advantages and disadvantages are well known, there are still uncertainties with respect to their long-term results. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes more than one-year post operatively using objective measurement devices. The study included 31 facial defects reconstructed with local random flap, 30 facial defects reconstructed with split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) and 30 facial defects reconstructed with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs). Skin quality was objectively evaluated using MP6 noninvasive probes (Courage + Khazaka GmbH, Cologne, Germany), which measure melanin count, erythema, hydration, sebum, friction and transepidermal water loss. The results showed that there were no significant differences in melanin count, erythema, hydration, sebum level, friction value and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) between the site reconstructed with random local flaps and the same site on the healthy contralateral side of the face. However, both FTSGs and STSGs showed significantly higher levels in terms of TEWL and erythema, whereas the levels of hydration, sebum and friction were significantly lower compared to the healthy contralateral side. Moreover, STSGs resulted in a significant difference in melanin count. These findings imply that the complex pathophysiology of the wound-healing process possibly results in better skin-quality outcomes for random local flaps than skin autografts. Consequently, this suggests that random local flaps should be implemented whenever possible for the reconstruction of facial region defects.
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.