ArticleCureus2025
Analysis of Sensory Recovery of Neurotized Free Flaps in Cases of Head-Neck Reconstruction: Our Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Second or subsequent microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- The application of robot-assisted microsurgery in orthoplastic surgery.Innovative surgical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional outcomes have been better concerning swallowing ability, distinguishing hot and cold sensations, articulation, and improved range of tongue movement by sensory neurotization of the flaps used for head and neck reconstruction. We evaluated the sensory recovery in free flaps utilizing the great auricular nerve as the recipient sensory nerve, anastomosing a few fascicles of the greater auricular nerve (GAN) to that of the flap sensory nerve; lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve in the radial forearm free flap, and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve in the anterolateral thigh flap. The sensory examination was performed at the visible center of the flap at the three-month and six-month follow-ups. The flaps were assessed for the recovery of five sensory modalities: fine touch, pain, pressure, two-point discrimination (2PD), and temperature. The sensory recovery was evaluated according to the Mackinnon Dellon scale. The sensory recovery in the neurotized flaps was compared with that in non-neurotized free flaps at the six-month follow-up. The sensory recovery graded by the Mackinon Dellon scale for all five modalities of sensation was statistically significant in sensate-free flaps at the six-month follow-up. Also, the sensory territory of the greater auricular nerve at the peri-auricular area was assessed for loss of sensation at the six-month follow-up, which was not clinically significant. We observed the great auricular nerve as a potential sensory nerve that may be utilized at the flap reconstruction site to neurotize free flaps used for head and neck reconstruction with a significant sensory recovery and without worrisome symptoms at the GAN sensory territory.
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.