Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291639›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Longitudinal Outcomes of Abdominoperineal Resection Reconstruction: A Single-center Retrospective Review.

Zachary Gala, Mehdi S Lemdani, Jane N Ewing, J Reed McGraw, Dustin T Crystal, Ellen Niu, Irfan A Rhemtulla, Robyn B Broach, Najjia N Mahmoud, Stephen J Kovach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Zachary GalaFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mehdi S LemdaniFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Jane N EwingFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
J Reed McGrawFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Dustin T CrystalFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Ellen NiuFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Irfan A RhemtullaFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Robyn B BroachFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Najjia N MahmoudDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Stephen J KovachFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection (APR) typically utilizes primary closure, locoregional myocutaneous flaps (gracilis or vertical rectus myocutaneous [VRAM]), or omental flaps. Although flap coverage is considered superior to primary closure, no specific flap is preferred, and reconstructive complications can occur in 20%-50% patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of perineal reconstruction with VRAM, gracilis, and omental flaps. Methods: A single-institution retrospective cohort review was performed on all adult patients who underwent APR defect reconstruction with VRAM, gracilis, or omental flaps by the plastic surgery service between 2014 and 2023. Demographic, operative, and outcomes-associated variables were noted (surgical site infection, nonhealing wounds, flap necrosis/failure, need for additional procedures/operations, etc.). Results: A total of 80 patients were identified, 11 diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (1 Crohn disease and 10 ulcerative colitis), and 58 diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Flap reconstruction was as follows: 24 VRAM, 49 gracilis, 7 omental. Mean follow-up was 34.9 months (1.56 wk, 9.12 y). Enterocutaneous fistula formation was significantly more likely in VRAM versus gracilis flaps (gracilis odds ratio: 0.11, Conclusions: Perineal reconstruction after APR can be achieved by various methods. Although the literature has shown flap closure to be more efficacious, differences in overall postoperative complication rate across flap type are minimal. Alternatives to VRAM reconstruction should be considered in patients predisposed to fistula formation.

Identifiers

PMID40291639
PMCPMC12026374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.