Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36646921›Full record

SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2023

Periorbital reconstructive techniques following Mohs micrographic surgery or excisions: a systematic review.

Laura K Archibald, Rachit Gupta, Kathryn T Shahwan, Marki Swick, Caitlin Bakker, Adam R Mattox, Murad Alam, Ian A Maher

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Laura K ArchibaldDepartment of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Phillips-Wangensteen Building, 516 Delaware Street SE, Suite 1-400, Mail Code 98, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. archi088@umn.edu.
Rachit GuptaDivision of Dermatology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL, USA.
Kathryn T ShahwanAltru Health System/University of North Dakota Medical School, Grand Forks, ND, USA.
Marki SwickDepartment of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Phillips-Wangensteen Building, 516 Delaware Street SE, Suite 1-400, Mail Code 98, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Caitlin BakkerUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Adam R MattoxDepartment of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Phillips-Wangensteen Building, 516 Delaware Street SE, Suite 1-400, Mail Code 98, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Murad AlamDepartment of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ian A MaherDepartment of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Phillips-Wangensteen Building, 516 Delaware Street SE, Suite 1-400, Mail Code 98, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
University of Minnesota · USAltru Health System · USLoyola University Medical Center · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many articles in the literature on periorbital reconstruction after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or surgical excision, however, the literature lacks a comprehensive systematic review of these reports. We performed a systematic review of published data on periorbital defect reconstruction to identify trends in the literature. A comprehensive search of eight databases was performed. To be included in the study, articles had to be published in English between 2005 and 2020 and contain repair data for MMS or excision defects in the periorbital region. Studies with less than four patients, literature or systematic reviews, and abstract-only publications were excluded. Data extracted from eligible articles included the authors' medical specialties, study design, subject number and demographics, defect characteristics, procedure type, reconstructive methods, complications, outcome measures, and method of outcome assessment. 53 studies met the inclusion criteria. The first and last authors' specialties were ophthalmology (47%), plastic and reconstructive surgery (23%), dermatology (13%), otolaryngology (4%), or were multi-specialty collaborations (13%). Only 5 of the studies were prospective. Defects were located on the lower eyelid (55%), medial canthus (31%), upper eyelid (8%), lateral canthus (4%), or a combination of these sites (2%). Reconstructive methods were reported for 3678 cases and included linear repair (18%), advancement flap (8%), rotation flap (5%), transposition flap (3%), island pedicle flap (1%), unspecified local skin flap (21%), skin graft (23%), secondary intention (4%), tarsoconjunctival flap (3%), and combined reconstruction techniques (13%). Thirty-three of 53 articles specified the periorbital subunit for each reconstructive technique that was employed. Among these 33 articles which allowed for correlation between defect location and reconstructive technique, the most utilized repair method for lower eyelid defects was local skin flap. Defects on the upper eyelid or medial canthus were most frequently repaired with a skin graft. Forty articles commented on cosmetic outcomes, however, only 3 of these articles utilized a defined grading system, objective measurements, or independent reviewers to assess the cosmetic outcomes. The methods of reconstruction in this review were diverse, however, local skin flaps and grafts were the most utilized techniques. In future reports, increased reporting of reconstructive technique by defect location as well as increased use of standardized assessments of aesthetic outcomes can help strengthen this body of literature.

Indexed as

Eyelid NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresHumansMohs SurgeryProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSurgical FlapsEyelid reconstructionMohsPeriorbital reconstructionSkin cancerSurgery

Identifiers

PMID36646921
OpenAlexW4316653360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.