ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Optimizing the Use of Pedicled versus Random Pattern Local Flaps in the Foot and Ankle.
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.
- Comparing Free and Pedicled Flaps for Leg, Ankle and Heel Reconstruction: An Analysis of Outcomes, Complications and Flap Selection Considerations.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Understanding the Prevalence of Medial Arterial Calcification Among Complex Reconstructive Patients: Insights from a Decade of Experience at a Tertiary Limb Salvage Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the use of pedicled local (PFs) versus random pattern flaps (RpFs) in foot and ankle reconstruction in patients with chronic, nonhealing wounds. Methods: A single-center, retrospective review of 204 patients with 118 PFs and 86 RpFs was performed. The primary outcome included rates of limb salvage. Results: PFs were used more often in the hindfoot (44.1% versus 30.2%, Conclusions: Both RpFs and PFs remain reliable options to reconstruct defects of the foot and ankle. Optimizing the use of each flap type should consider wound characteristics. RpFs are preferred for dorsal and plantar defects, whereas PFs are protective for minor infections and preferred for deeper wounds despite a higher rate of partial necrosis.
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.