ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Application of a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for the Evaluation of Blood Flow in Free Flaps.
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.
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
Background: The key to salvaging free flaps following postoperative hemodynamic compromise is early detection and prompt intervention. Although clinical examinations, such as observing flap color, are often used for monitoring, they are subjective and have limited accuracy. This underscores the need for a low-cost, simple, and objective alternative. A potential solution is the use of a flash glucose monitoring (FGM) system for flap monitoring. In this study, we retrospectively investigated whether FGM is beneficial for monitoring flap blood flow. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of patients who underwent breast reconstruction using a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap transfer. An FGM sensor was applied to each monitoring flap, and interstitial fluid glucose (IFG) levels were measured regularly during a 7-day postoperative period. Results: A total of 37 flaps were evaluated. Five flaps required surgical revision due to hemodynamic compromise; 1, in a patient with diabetes, completely failed, whereas 3 were successfully salvaged. The remaining flap developed arterial occlusion on the sixth day and was partially necrotic. In all cases requiring revision, except for the patient with diabetes, IFG levels dropped to less than 40 mg/dL before any clinical examination changes were observed. The IFG cutoff value, defined as less than 40 mg/dL, was calculated to have 100% sensitivity and 91% specificity within 48 hours postoperatively, with a negative predictive value of 100%. Conclusions: Measuring IFG using FGM is a noncontact, simple, and low-cost method. This method can provide a highly effective screening method for human and economic resource use.
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.