ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Medial sural artery perforator free flap for small- to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction: a suitable replacement for radial forearm free flap.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive 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.
- A comparative study of single versus double venous anastomosis with microvascular anastomotic coupler device (MACD) in maxillofacial reconstructions with free flaps.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Anatomical study of the medial sural artery perforator flap and its application in the reconstruction of infected defects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- [The clinical outcomes of using superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap and radial forearm free flap for reconstructing oral and maxillofacial soft tissue defects].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Free cMSAP flap for the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis with complex soft tissue defects in foot and ankle.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo compare clinical outcomes and donor site morbidity between medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flap and radial forearm free (RFF) flap for soft tissue reconstruction of head and neck.
methodsForty-six patients who underwent free flap reconstruction at the head and neck cancer center from February 2019 to March 2021 were included, of which 25 RFF flaps and 21 MSAP flaps. The patient and flap characteristics (age, sex, flap size, harvest time, etc.) and outcomes (success rate, donor site complications including infection, hematoma, and fistula, donor site morbidity including abnormal sensation, weakness, range of motion, postoperative oral function) were recorded and compared. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months after surgery. The patients were assessed subjective donor-site morbidity and satisfaction with overall functional results using a self-reported questionnaire.
resultsThe success rates of RFF flaps and MSAP flaps were 96% and 95.2%. There were no significant differences in age, sex, flap size, pedicle length, postoperative treatment, and postoperative oral function. MSAP flap showed less donor site morbidity and better subjective satisfaction at the donor site than RFF flap did after a 12-month follow-up. A dominant perforator of the medial sural artery emerges constantly near the point which is approximately 15 cm from the popliteal fossa center vertically, and 3 cm from the postor midline of the leg horizontally.
conclusionDue to less donor site morbidity and higher patient satisfaction, MSAP flap can be used as a replacement for RFF flap for small to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction.
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.