ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Donor site outcomes and functional recovery are improved with superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flap compared to radial forearm flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
- Second or subsequent microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of the superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator (SIEA) flap and radial forearm (FA) flap in reconstructing oral and maxillofacial soft tissue defects, with emphasis on donor site complications, functional recovery, aesthetic outcomes, and quality of life.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 204 patients who underwent SIEA (n = 104) or FA (n = 100) flap reconstruction between 2014 and 2023. Outcomes assessed included flap survival, donor site complications (scarring, sensory abnormalities), functional recovery (mouth opening, speech clarity), and quality of life (based on UW-QOL). Statistical analysis included chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression.
resultsFlap survival rates were similar between groups (P = 0.411). However, the SIEA group exhibited significantly better donor site outcomes: fewer sensory abnormalities (P < 0.001), less severe scarring (P < 0.001), and greater aesthetic satisfaction (P = 0.027). Functional outcomes also favored the SIEA flap, with improved mouth opening (P = 0.024) and speech clarity (P < 0.001). However, SIEA reconstruction required longer operative time (P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for delayed donor site healing included age ≥ 60 years, BMI ≥ 23 kg/m
conclusionThe SIEA flap offers superior donor site aesthetics, sensory preservation, and functional recovery compared to the FA flap, though it is associated with longer operative time. The FA flap remains a reliable option. Preoperative planning should consider individualized flap selection based on vascular anatomy, comorbidities, and aesthetic goals.
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.