ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2022
No added benefits of adipofascial flaps over fasciocutaneous flaps except for footwear ease and bulkiness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue perfusion and its influencing factors in epigastrial adipocutanous flaps affected by ischemia-reperfusion in rats.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2026Article
- Impacts of PACAP 1-38 and BGP-15 on the Healing of Fasciocutaneous Groin Flaps Affected by Ischemia-Reperfusion in Rats.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of femoral bone loss: uncemented vs. cemented aseptic stem loosening in first-time revision surgery-a retrospective evaluation of 215 patients.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The fasciocutaneous (FC) flap or the axial flap consists of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and deep fascia. In the literature today, there is no evidence suggesting that either surgery is superior to the other in terms of outcome and complications. Reviews in the literature currently compare the outcomes of skin closure after Orthopedic surgeries. The meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes, complication rates, need for re-surgery, and donor site morbidity between the AF flaps and FC flaps. A null hypothesis that stated inferior outcomes of FC flaps along with more complication rates over AF flaps was kept at the start of the study. Methods: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase were searched until December 2020. The review included all original studies which compared the outcomes or complications between FC and AF flaps. The quality of studies was assessed using the Minors score. Results: A total of 7 original studies with AF and FC flap procedures of which 136 underwent FC flap and 212 underwent AF flap. The pooled data meta-analysis and the subgroup analysis of these studies found no standardized protocol for reporting the outcomes or the cosmetic outcome of the flap surgery. The adipofascial group showed overall shorter operative time, less bulky flap and ability to wear footwear. Also the complications did not differ in both groups with respect to flap loss, complication following surgery, wound dehiscence, wound closure, donor site complications. Conclusion: The current meta-analysis reveals that there is no added benefit of using AF flaps over the FC flaps. The rates of partial or total flap necrosis along with donor site morbidities and successful wound closure and overall complication rates were similar between the two groups. However, there is evidence to support the superiority of AF flaps over the FC variety with respect to ease of wearing footwear and a less bulky flap. Level of evidence: Level 1 Systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.