ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Comparison between free posterior tibial flap and free radial forearm flap for head and neck reconstruction: an anatomical study and a retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Both free posterior tibial flap (FPTF) and free radial forearm flap (FRFF) are commonly used for head and neck defects. They have many similarities in embryology, histology, and anatomy, but their advantages and disadvantages in head and neck repair have not been fully recognized. This study aimed to compare the cadaveric anatomy and clinical application of FPTF and FRFF for the reconstruction of head and neck defects after tumor resection. Methods: Anatomical dissection was performed on 10 fresh adult cadavers. The general characteristics of both flaps and the sites of recipients and donors were collected. A total of 31 and 25 patients underwent FPTF and FRFF construction, respectively. The patient medical records were assessed to obtain the clinical characteristics. Characteristics of the flap such as size, pedicle length, and clinical process data were collected and compared. The appearance, sensory disturbance, and effect on quality of life and daily activity were evaluated. Results: The posterior tibial artery was present and observed in all patients. The posterior vascular pedicle was longer than the radial artery. There was no difference between the diameters of arteries of FPTF and FRFF; however, the diameters of their veins differed. In terms of flap characteristics, FPTF was significantly larger and had a longer vascular pedicle than FRFF (40.68±11.07 Conclusions: FPTF is a reliable alternative to FRFF for head and neck reconstruction. These techniques share similar certain embryogenesis and anatomical characteristics but FPTF possesses unique aesthetic and clinical application advantages.
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.