ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2023
Comparison of lateral arm flap and posterior interosseous artery flap for soft tissue reconstruction of the elbow.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
backgroundThe study aimed to evaluate and compare the two different flap techniques used for the reconstruction of soft tissue defects in the elbow region: the lateral arm flap (LAA) and posterior interosseous artery (PIA) flap.
methodsThe retrospective study included 12 patients who underwent surgical treatment for soft tissue defects between 2012-2018 at the clinic. The study evaluated demographic data, flap size, operating time, donor site, flap complications, number of perfora-tors, and functional and cosmetic outcomes.
resultsResults showed that patients who underwent PIA flap had significantly smaller defect size than those who underwent LAA flap (p<0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). Patients who received PIA flaps had significantly lower QuickDASH scores, indicating better functional results (p<0.05). The operating time was significantly shorter in the PIA group than in the LAA flap group (p<0.05). Additionally, the range of motion (ROM) of the elbow joint was significantly higher among the patients who received the PIA flap (p<0.05).
conclusionThe study concludes that both flap techniques are easy to apply depending on the surgeon's experience, have low complication risk, and provide similar functional and cosmetic results in similar defect sizes.
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.