ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
The Preferred Design of the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Transverse or Diagonal?
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thigh-based Breast Reconstruction: A Decade of Experience With the Diagonal Upper Gracilis Flap.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Profunda artery perforator characteristics and outcomes: a systematic review.Gland surgery · 2025Review
- Assessing Donor Site Morbidity and Impact on Quality of Life in Free Flap Microsurgery: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions.World journal of oncology · 2024Review
- Efficacy of the Posterior Accessory Saphenous Vein as a Vein Graft in Breast Reconstruction Using Profunda Artery Perforator Flap.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Since its introduction for autologous breast reconstruction in 2010, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has emerged as a preferred choice when an abdominal flap is suboptimal. The traditional transverse design (tPAP) was popularized, given the inconspicuous donor scar. A diagonal design (dPAP) has since evolved to address some of the shortcomings of the tPAP. The authors aimed to compare outcomes of tPAP/dPAP flaps harvested for breast reconstruction by a single surgeon. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted from 2017 to 2022 of patients undergoing tPAP versus dPAP-based breast reconstruction by a single surgeon at a tertiary cancer center. Patient variables and operative variables were assessed. Need for additional symmetrizing breast procedures were compared. Complications and BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed. Results: Thirty-nine flaps were used to reconstruct 35 breasts in 24 patients. Average follow-up for the group was 1.8 years. The groups were similar with respect to demographics. The majority of dPAP flaps had two perforators, whereas most tPAP flaps had one perforator. The dPAP flaps had greater average weights, width, and overall surface area. There were no cases of partial/total flap loss. Complications and PROM results were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: The dPAP design allows for a larger skin paddle and greater tissue harvest and capture of cutaneous perforators, without increasing the risk of complications or compromising satisfaction. It should be considered as a viable option in patients unable to undergo abdominal-based reconstruction. Additional patients and multi-institutional efforts are necessary to better compare advantages of either design.
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.