SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Clinical Outcomes Following Profunda Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PAP Versus DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: Current Evidence and the Unresolved Question of Timing and Oncologic Safety-A Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Profunda artery perforator characteristics and outcomes: a systematic review.Gland surgery · 2025Review
- Enhancing Volume Precision in Breast Reconstruction: A BMI-Based Model for Predicting Flap Weight in Profunda Artery Perforator Flaps.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
39467864What 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.