Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39467864›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025

Clinical Outcomes Following Profunda Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Liwen Zhu, Chunjun Liu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liwen ZhuPlastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, China.
Chunjun LiuPlastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, China. liuchunjun@psh.pumc.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-4741-058X

Funding

Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research 2024-1-4041Institute Funding no. YS202016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of reliable evidence on the surgical outcomes of profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap breast reconstruction. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate its safety and compare it with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, aiming to offer more information on whether the PAP flap was an ideal alternative for autologous breast reconstruction.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The postoperative complication rates following PAP reconstruction were pooled. Mean differences of patients' age, BMI, mastectomy weight and flap weight between PAP and DIEP group were calculated, and relative risk was estimated to compare their incidence of complications.

resultsTwenty-four articles reporting 1612 PAP flap breast reconstructions were included. The surgical success rate was 99.6%; the incidence of total and partial flap loss was 0.4% and 0.0%; the incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, fat necrosis and wound dehiscence in recipient sites was 0.3%, 1.4%, 1.0%, 3.3% and 0.3%, respectively; the incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, wound dehiscence and sensory disturbance in donor sites was 2.0%, 0.9%, 3.5%, 9.2% and 0.6%, respectively. Compared to the DIEP group, the average age, BMI, mastectomy weight and final flap weight were significantly lower in the PAP group. No significant difference was observed in terms of flap failure, breast fat necrosis and donor site wound dehiscence.

conclusionsThis systematic review demonstrates similar levels of postoperative morbidities for the PAP and DIEP flaps with some subtle differences and verifies the PAP flap as a second-line treatment for patients when the DIEP is unavailable or undesirable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

MammaplastyPerforator FlapFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansMastectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeBreast reconstructionDeep inferior epigastric perforator flapMastectomyPostoperative complicationsProfunda artery perforator flap

Identifiers

PMID39467864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.