ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
The Utility of De-epithelialization in Subcutaneous Skin Flap Transposition.
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.
- How to approach the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap revision for optimal aesthetics.Gland surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To address soft tissue volume deficiencies following surgery or injury, plastic surgeons implant de-epithelialized flaps subcutaneously. During this procedure, residual epidermal components and skin appendages may inadvertently be implanted, potentially leading to postoperative complications. However, such occurrences are rare in clinical practice. To date, no studies have examined the long-term changes in subcutaneously transposed skin flaps. Methods: De-epithelialized and non-de-epithelialized flaps were implanted subcutaneously in rat models. Pathological analyses, Western blotting, and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction were performed to evaluate temporal changes. Results: In all cases of non-de-epithelialized flap implantation, subcutaneous masses were palpable at all time points. Pathological and molecular analyses revealed the formation of a single epidermal cyst at each site throughout the study period, with no significant changes in keratin 5 expression, a marker of the basal epidermal layer. In contrast, in de-epithelialized flap sites, subcutaneous masses observed at 1 month postoperatively gradually regressed over time. Clusters of small cysts that initially formed at 1 month postoperatively disappeared over time, coinciding with a reduction in keratin 5 expression. Furthermore, regardless of epithelialization status, the development of body hairs from subcutaneously implanted follicles progressively diminished. Conclusions: These findings suggest that in non-de-epithelialized flaps, residual epidermis persists and continues to differentiate, potentially leading to complications. In contrast, in de-epithelialized flaps, remaining skin appendages and epithelial components gradually regress, thereby reducing the risk of complications. The results underscore the clinical usage of de-epithelialization in subcutaneous skin flap transplantation.
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.