ArticleJPRAS open2022
Analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in post-ELAPE perineal reconstruction with IGAP flap - A 5-year review.
Article in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Flap reconstruction in rectal resection and exenteration surgery: a single centre retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A Ten-Step Surgical Approach to Radical Excision of a Primary Ischiorectal Fossa Tumor With IGAP V-Y Flap Reconstruction-A Case Report of a Rare Myxofibrosarcoma.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtralevator abdominoperineal excisions (ELAPE) are now the accepted treatment option for low rectal cancers, which result in large perineal defects necessitating reconstruction. The aim of our study was to assess the clinical outcomes as well as the quality-of-life parameters (QOLP) following these reconstructions.
methodsA series of 27 patients who underwent ELAPE and immediate reconstruction with inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps (IGAP) between December 2013 to December 2018 were retrospectively analysed on patient demographics, disease and treatment, complications, and QOLP.
resultsWith a mean age of 71.6 years, all patients had low rectal cancers and underwent ELAPE (24 open, 3 lap-assisted) and immediate IGAP flap reconstruction. The follow-up period was 1 year. The overall perineal early minor complication rate was 25.9% and the early major complication rate of 14.8%. QOLP, such as tolerance to sit, perineal pain, perineal aesthetics, showed high patient satisfaction of 77.7%, 40.74%, and 66.6%, respectively at 1 year. The perineal hernia rate was 14.8% with all patients being female (p 0.0407; significant).
conclusionIGAP flaps are a reliable option for reconstructing post-ELAPE defects with good patient satisfaction and outcomes.
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.