ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Medial sural artery perforator free flap versus radial forearm free flap in oral cavity reconstruction and donor site morbidity.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative study of single versus double venous anastomosis with microvascular anastomotic coupler device (MACD) in maxillofacial reconstructions with free flaps.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Lingual pedicle intraoral anastomosis for tongue reconstruction after partial or hemiglossectomy: technical note and case report.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Anatomical study of the medial sural artery perforator flap and its application in the reconstruction of infected defects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Donor site outcomes and functional recovery are improved with superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flap compared to radial forearm flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Assessing Donor Site Morbidity and Impact on Quality of Life in Free Flap Microsurgery: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRadial Forearm Free flap (RFFF) is widely used in head and neck reconstruction, yet its donor site defect remains a significant drawback. The Medial Sural Artery Perforator Free Flap (MSAPFF) is considered an alternative flap to RFFF. This study aims to comprehensively analyze their characteristics, outcomes, and their impact on patient quality of life.
methodsAll patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction using RFFF and MSAPFF between February 2017 and April 2023 were included in this study. Flap characteristics, outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded and compared. Subjective donor site morbidity, aesthetic and functional results, and quality of life were also analyzed.
resultsThe study included 76 patients: 37 underwent reconstruction with RFFF, and 39 with MSAPFF. There was no significance difference between the RFFF and MSAPFF regarding the success rate (97.2% vs 97.4%), flap size (4.8 × 8.8 cm
conclusionThe MSAPFF is an excellent alternative to the RFFF for repairing oral cavity defects, with additional advantage of a well-hidden scar on the posterior calf, a larger flap thickness, accepted pedicle length and arterial caliber. However, one should consider the harvesting time and surgical skills required in comparison to the RFFF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study highlights the importance of the MSAPFF as an alternative option for RFFF with less donor site morbidity and high success rate in oral cavity reconstruction and improved patient Quality of life after ablative surgery.
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.