SynthesisJournal of reconstructive microsurgery2025
Validation of Novel Microsurgical Vessel Anastomosis Techniques: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of reconstructive microsurgery, 2025. 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.
- Clinical experience in the management of penetrating stab wounds to the neck: A retrospective analysis of 5 cases.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026Observational
- [Clinical analysis of mandibular tumor resection with free fibula transplantation and implant implantation via the intraoral approach].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThorough validation of novel microsurgical techniques is deemed essential before their integration into clinical practice. To achieve proper validation, the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be undertaken, accompanied by the execution of comprehensive statistical analyses, including confounder adjustment and power analysis. This systematic review aims to provide an encompassing overview of the validation methodologies employed in microsurgical studies, with a specific focus on innovative vessel anastomosis techniques.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed for articles describing the validation of novel microsurgical vessel anastomosis techniques in animal or human subjects.
resultsThe literature search yielded 6,658 articles. A total of 6,564 articles were excluded based on title and abstract. Ninety-four articles were assessed for full-text eligibility. Forty-eight articles were included in this systematic review. Out of 30 comparative studies, 9 studies validated novel modified interrupted suture techniques, 6 studies modified continuous techniques, 6 studies modified sleeve anastomosis techniques, 1 study a modified vesselotomy technique, 7 studies sutureless techniques, and 1 study a modified lymphaticovenular anastomosis technique. Twenty-eight studies contained animals (
conclusionThe current methods of microsurgical technique validation should be reconsidered due to poor study design. Statistical analysis including confounder adjustment and power analysis should be performed as a standard method of novel technique validation.
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.