ArticleJPRAS open2025
Immediate local flap versus skin graft reconstruction after standard excision of basal cell carcinoma of the nose.
Article in JPRAS open, 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.
- The versatile menu of the nasolabial flap in nasal reconstruction: A defect-based algorithm.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Lip-lift Flap for Columellar-Nasal Base Reconstruction after Mohs Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Basal cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Surgical management and postoperative strategies - A researcher's perspective.Oncoscience · 2026Article
- Article
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
Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the nose requires surgical excision and often reconstruction with a local flap or a skin graft. Although standard excision remains common, the international guidelines lack consensus on whether the reconstruction should be performed after the histological margins are confirmed. In this retrospective study, we analyzed all consecutive cases of nasal BCC operated in the Hospital district of Helsinki and Uusimaa in 2015-2016 using standard excision and immediate reconstruction. The characteristics of the patients' and tumors were compared with the reconstruction method used: linear closure, local flap, or skin graft. Especially, the risk factors for re-excision were investigated. Overall, 305 patients and 318 BCCs were included in the study. Among them, 112 (35.2%) cases were reconstructed with local flaps, 66 (20.8%) with skin grafts, and 140 (44.0%) via linear closure. Flap reconstruction was common for alar and flank defects while tip defects were often skin grafted. For defects of the base and dorsum, there were no clear favorites. In 25 cases (7.9%), the re-excision was carried out due to margin involvement. There was no difference in the risk for re-excision between the different reconstruction groups. Tumor recurrence during the median follow-up time of 7.5 half years was only 3.8%. We did not identify any clear risk factors for re-excision or recurrence. Notably, neither the aggressive subtype nor subunit location were associated with the risk of re-excision. We suggest that standard excision of BCC of the nose and immediate reconstruction is a reasonable treatment option.
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.