ReviewCancers2022
Surgical Outcomes of VRAM vs. Gracilis Flaps in Vulvo-Perineal Reconstruction Following Oncologic Resection: A Proportional Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes in pelvic reconstruction using robot-assisted rectus abdominis muscle flaps: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Pooled it
- Perineal wound complications after vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and mesh closure following abdominoperineal surgery and pelvic exenteration of anal and rectal cancers: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- The Gracilis Muscle Reappraised: An Integrative Synthesis of Anatomy, Embryology, Imaging, and Surgical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Defining Uroplastics as a Collaborative Discipline at the Interface of Urology and Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Review
- 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
- Maximizing surgical precision in gracilis muscle reconstruction: anatomical Variants, advanced Imaging, and novel surgical strategies.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Review
- Reconstruction of the Vulva and Perineum-Comparison of Surgical Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Longitudinal Outcomes of Abdominoperineal Resection Reconstruction: A Single-center Retrospective Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Perforator versus Non-Perforator Flap-Based Vulvoperineal Reconstruction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Flaps and Grafts in Robotic Reconstructive Surgery.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Narrative review of flaps and grafts in robotic reconstructive urologic surgery.Annals of laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery · 2024Article
- VRAM Flap for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction after Pelvic Exenteration and Abdominoperineal Excision.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic exenteration and abdominoperineal resection are radical techniques commonly used for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy with high morbidity due to large pelvic defects. Flaps can help provide healthy, well-vascularized, non-irradiated tissues to fill pelvic dead space. We conducted a proportional meta-analysis to compare surgical outcomes of vertical rectus abdominus myocutaneous flap (VRAM) vs. gracilis flap for vulvo-perineal reconstruction following oncologic resection. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases. Proportional meta-analysis was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of using VRAM or gracilis flaps. Our review yielded 16 eligible studies. The pooled resolution rate of overall donor site complications for VRAM flap (pooled proportion = 0.576 [95% CI 0.387, 0.754]) was significantly higher than the pooled rate of overall donor site complications of gracilis flap (pooled proportion = 0.160 [95% CI 0.058, 0.295]). Partial and total flap necrosis were similar in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between minor and major complications for both flaps. Both flaps can be used safely for vulvo-perineal reconstruction following oncologic resection with similar recipient site outcomes, although the VRAM flap will have more donor site complications than the gracilis flap.
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.