SynthesisMicrosurgery2025
Free Flap Reconstruction in Burns: A Systematic Review of Current Practices and Evidence.
Synthesis in Microsurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Free Flap Reconstruction in Burns: A Systematic Review of Current Practices and Evidence.Microsurgery · 2025Pooled it
- The delayed mouth-opening technique: a staged inset strategy to prevent distal necrosis in perioral free flap reconstruction.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Free Flap Reconstruction for Burn Injuries: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparison of Primary and Secondary Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy in the Therapeutic Protocol of Extensive Pediatric Burns: Current Practice and Further Treatment Decision Algorithm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of microsurgery remains extremely limited in burn management despite offering an alternative in cases where conventional burn reconstruction techniques fall short. This systematic review aims to evaluate the success of microsurgical burn reconstruction in both acute and chronic burn patients and compare it to other surgical modalities as reported in current literature.
methodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed/Google Scholar databases, spanning publications from 2005 to 2023. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Data were sorted into categories such as study details, patient demographics, burn information, surgical management, and outcomes.
resultsThe studies encompassed 396 microsurgical reconstructions with a wide age range and varied anatomical regions for both primary and secondary reconstruction. The most common burn etiology was flame, and most acute burn surgeries were performed five to 22 days after injury. The most common acute and nonacute complications were partial necrosis and hematomas, respectively. Findings revealed an average success rate per flap of 92.7% and 95.7% for acute and reconstructive free flaps, respectively.
conclusionMicrosurgery offers a promising alternative for complex burn injuries where conventional reconstructive options are exhausted or fall short. However, its success is contingent on patient selection, timing of intervention, and perioperative patient care. The success rate and complication profile of acute microsurgical burn reconstruction are similar to that seen in trauma reconstruction. Secondary microsurgical burn reconstructions have similar success rates to those seen in other elective flaps, such as breast reconstruction. Current usage of microsurgery in burns is low, yet the majority of literature supports expanding its application in the field.
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.