ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Uneasy (Intractable) Head and Neck Defect Coverage With Easy and Reliable Local Flap Techniques: A Retrospective Case-Based Study of Perforator-Plus Peninsular Flap and Modified Keystone Flap.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- Uneasy (Intractable) Head and Neck Defect Coverage With Easy and Reliable Local Flap Techniques: A Retrospective Case-Based Study of Perforator-Plus Peninsular Flap and Modified Keystone Flap.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
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
Objectives: Head and neck defects are challenging to reconstruct. Local flaps, preserving donor sites, offer optimal results. This study evaluated perforator-plus peninsular flaps (PPPF) and modified keystone flaps (MKF) for reconstructing "uneasy" defects lacking clear solutions. Methods: Records of patients undergoing PPPF or MKF were reviewed. Defects were defined as "uneasy" if two of three experienced plastic surgeons could not suggest a local flap within 10 min. Data on demographics, defect features, flap type, complications, and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)-based scar outcomes were analyzed. Results: Ten patients (mean age, 50.3 years) were included. Defects involved the scalp and forehead (60%), ear (20%), cheek (10%), and neck (10%) with a mean size of 16.5 cm Conclusion: PPPF and MKF offer reliable solutions for uneasy head and neck defects.
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.