ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Longitudinal Outcomes of Abdominoperineal Resection Reconstruction: A Single-center Retrospective Review.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.