ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Microvascular reconstruction in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a Europe-wide data collection.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to analyze microvascular reconstruction in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) in Europe.
methodsBased on previous studies, a dynamic online questionnaire was developed and subjected to internal and external evaluation. The questionnaire comprised multiple-choice, rating, and open-ended questions, addressing general and specific aspects and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on microvascular reconstruction in OMFS in Europe. It was implemented into SurveyMonkey's
resultsSeventy-five participants from 23 European countries participated. Among them, 89% perform between 1 and 70 microvascular free flaps (MFF) annually. 38% of the participants reported a reduction in MFF due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The radial forearm (41% of participants) and fibula free flap (31%) are the most reported MFF. In most cases (59%), MFF procedures are exclusively performed by OMFS for OMFS patients, while 43% of participants reported cooperations with plastic surgeons to perform MFF for OMFS patients. Many participants prefer arterial end-to-end anastomoses (54%) using the facial artery (54%) and, if available, two venous anastomoses (68%). Low molecular weight heparin is the most used postoperative anticoagulant, reported by 67% of participants. For flap monitoring, clinical assessment and Doppler ultrasound are preferred by most participants (95% and 78%, respectively). Many participants (66%) indicated that tracheotomy is only performed when necessary. Differences were observed in relation to CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing) techniques, types of osteosynthesis, and dental implant treatment.
conclusionThis study highlighted variability in microvascular reconstruction in OMFS in Europe. Further studies are needed to assess these aspects in detail.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39847127What 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.