ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Free Flap Failure and Complications in Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Free Flap Reconstruction for Burn Injuries: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparison of Primary and Secondary Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- In the Era of Advanced Microsurgery, Is There Still a Place for Pedicled Abdominal Flaps? A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Role of Interrupted Horizontal Micromattress suturing for size discrepancies in free flap vessel anastomosis.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
- Free Flap Failure and Contracture Recurrence in Delayed Burn Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Free Flap Reconstruction in Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Severe acute burn injuries represent a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Free flap reconstruction might be required in cases of significant critical structure exposure and soft tissue deficits, when local options are unavailable. This study aimed to determine the free flap complication rate in acute burn patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42023404478). The following databases were accessed: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the free flap failure rate. Results: The study identified 31 articles for inclusion. A total of 427 patients (83.3% men, 16.7% women) accounting for 454 free flaps were included. The mean patient age was 36.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.25-41.16]. Total free flap loss rate was 9.91% [95% CI, 7.48%-13.02%], and partial flap loss was 4.76% [95% CI, 2.66%-8.39%]. The rate of venous thrombosis was 6.41% [95% CI, 3.90%-10.36%] and arterial thrombosis was 5.08% [95% CI, 3.09%-8.26%]. Acute return to the operating room occurred in 20.63% [16.33%-25.71%] of cases. Stratified by body region, free flaps in the lower extremity had a failure rate of 8.33% [95% CI, 4.39%-15.24%], whereas in the upper extremity, the failure rate was 6.74% [95% CI, 3.95%-11.25%]. Conclusion: This study highlights the high risk of free flap complications and failure in acute burn patients.
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.