ReviewOTO open
Systematic Review of the Profunda Artery Perforator Free Flap for Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Review in OTO open. 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.
- Adipofascial Infragluteal Perforator Flap for Total Parotidectomy Reconstruction: A Novel Application for Inconspicuous Donor and Recipient Site-Preliminary Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- SCIP/SIEA and PAP: The New Workhorse Flaps in Soft Tissue Reconstruction for All Body Regions.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has gained popularity in head and neck reconstruction with a favorable donor site providing a relatively hidden scar and the ability to harvest a large amount of pliable tissue with consistent vascular anatomy. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this PAP flap in head and neck reconstruction. Data Sources: PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar (January 1948-February 2022). Review Methods: A systematic review of the English language literature was conducted for studies with at least 3 patients 18 years or older undergoing head and neck reconstruction utilizing the PAP. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the MINORS scoring system. Main analysis endpoints were flap failure rate, donor site morbidity, and complication rate. Results: Nine articles and 206 total PAP flaps were included. The rate of flap-related and medical complications was 33%, with only 2 (0.97%) instances of complete flap failure. Other complications included partial flap failure (10, 4.86%) and donor site wound complications (12, 5.83%). A total of 16 flaps (7.77%) required subsequent revision in the operating room. Average MINORS score of the studies suggested a moderate to high risk of bias. Conclusion: Based on limited quality evidence, this review suggests that the PAP flap is a safe and feasible tool for head and neck reconstruction, with comparable complication and success rates as other free flaps. Further large-scale studies are warranted.
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.