ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
The Keystone Perforator Island Flap: Review of Utility and Versatile Clinical Applications.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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.
- Keystone Design Perforator Island Flap for the treatment of recurrent pilonidal disease.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The keystone perforator island flap (KPIF) was described almost a decade ago. However, this flap has only recently been recognized for its advantages in various clinical applications in plastic surgery. A better understanding of the versatility of KPIFs can help promote the widespread adoption of this technique for complex wounds in various anatomical regions. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients undergoing KPIFs from December 2018 to March 2022 at the authors' home institution. The indications, surgical approaches, patient characteristics, and outcomes were extracted for review and analysis. Results: A total of 12 patients (ages 13-86 years) underwent reconstruction with KPIFs for oncologic and nononcologic defects. By anatomic region, three cases involved the upper back, six involved the lumbosacral region, one involved the perineum, and two involved the midfoot. Half of the patients (n = 6) had failed previous attempts at wound closure. The mean defect size was 13.8 × 10.0 cm for the upper back lesions, 13.7 × 4.8 for the lumbosacral defects, and 3.5 × 2.0 for the metatarsal wounds. Median follow-up time for all patients was 7.5 months (IQR: 4-10.5). On follow-up, there was 100% flap survival. Conclusion: KPIFs are a simple, safe, and suitable option for reconstructive closure of defects in many anatomical areas, including wounds complicated by previous failed closure attempts, with low complication risk profile.
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.