ArticleHealth science reports2025
Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Perforator Pedicled V-Y Flap and Perforator Pedicled Propeller Flap in Repairing Small Area Soft Tissue Defects: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Primary medical institutions commonly employ perforator-pedicled propeller (PPP) flaps and V-Y flaps as the main methods for managing small soft tissue defects resulting from trauma or lesion resection. However, both surgical techniques have inherent limitations. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the feasibility of utilizing perforator-pedicled (PP) V-Y flaps for reconstructing small area soft tissue defects and evaluate their clinical effectiveness. Methods: The study conducted a retrospective analysis from January 2010 to December 2022, involving 49 patients with small soft tissue defects resulting from trauma or lesion resection (21 PP V-Y flaps and 28 PPP flaps). Evaluation criteria encompassed intraoperative conditions, postoperative short- and long-term complications, and aesthetic outcomes. Results: The results of this study showed that all flaps in the PP V-Y flap group survived, while six cases in the PPP flap group had partial necrosis. The donor area was closed directly in one stage for the group of perforator pedicled V-Y flaps, while skin grafting was required to repair the donor area for eight cases from the group of PPP flaps, leading to delayed healing in this region. Furthermore, aesthetic evaluation favored PP V-Y flaps as they exhibited significantly better appearances in both donor and recipient areas. Conclusion: In this study, compared to the PPP flap, the PP V-Y flap demonstrates superior outcomes with regard to reduced postoperative complications and enhanced aesthetic appearance. PP V-Y flap is an ideal technique for repairing small soft tissue defects of limbs, which is suitable for implementation in primary medical institutions.
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.