ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2023
Surgical outcomes of suprafascial and subfascial radial forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 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.
- Donor-Site Morbidity Following Radial Forearm Free Flap Harvest for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Reinforcement of a Subcutaneous Pocket for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Insertion Using Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) are known to be safe, but can result in donor site complications. Based on our experiences with suprafascial and subfascial RFFFs, we evaluated the safety of flap survival and surgical outcomes.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of head and neck reconstructions using RFFFs from 2006 to 2021. Thirty-two patients underwent procedures using either subfascial (group A) or suprafascial (group B) dissection for flap elevation. Data were collected on patient characteristics, flap size, and donor and recipient complications, and the two groups were compared.
resultsThirteen of the 32 patients were in group A and 19 were in group B. Group A included 10 men and three women, with a mean age of 56.15 years, and group B included 16 men and three women, with a mean age of 59.11 years. The mean defect areas were 42.83 cm² and 33.32 cm², and the mean flap sizes were 50.96 cm² and 44.54 cm² in groups A and B, respectively. There were 13 donor site complications: eight (61.5%) in group A and five (26.3%) in group B. Flexor tendon exposure occurred in three patients in group A and in none in group B. All flaps survived completely. A recipient site complication occurred in two patients (15.4%) in group A and three patients (15.8%) in group B.
conclusionsComplications and flap survival were similar between the two groups. However, tendon exposure at the donor site was less prevalent in the suprafascial group, and the treatment period was shorter. Based on our data, suprafascial RFFF is a reliable and safe procedure for reconstruction of the head and neck.
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.