ReviewFrontiers in surgery2025
Temporalis muscle flap in craniofacial reconstruction: anatomy, techniques, outcomes, and innovations.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- The Facial Nerve in Contemporary Surgery: Anatomical Variability, Pathology-Induced Distortion, and Functional Preservation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of the Temporal Flap in Reconstruction After Advanced External Ear Tumor Resection: A Case Report.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Morphological classification of the temporalis muscle: anatomical, radiological, and surgical perspectives.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Imaging-Based Clinical Management of Mandibular Canal Variants: PR-CBCT-Selective MRI.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The temporalis muscle flap (TMF) remains an essential reconstructive option in contemporary craniofacial reconstructive surgery (CRS) owing to its reliable vascularity, anatomical proximity to common defect areas, and substantial soft tissue volume. Despite extensive historical use, evolving surgical approaches and novel adjunctive technologies necessitate an updated comprehensive review to guide current clinical practice. Objective: This review critically examines the TMF regarding its anatomical considerations, surgical innovations, clinical outcomes, and functional restoration capacities. Additional objectives include a detailed assessment of clinical complications, identification of existing gaps in knowledge, and evidence-based comparisons with alternative reconstructive techniques. Methods: An extensive literature review was conducted utilizing current high-quality publications, including systematic reviews, clinical series, cadaveric anatomical studies, and reports detailing innovative techniques from major surgical journals. Specific emphasis was placed on the latest minimally invasive, endoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches, alongside novel tissue engineering methodologies and virtual surgical planning (VSP). Clinical outcomes, complication rates, patient satisfaction levels, and comparative analyses with alternative reconstructive flaps, including free tissue transfers and other regional flaps, were rigorously assessed. Conclusion: TMF remains a versatile, robust, and highly reliable reconstructive option within modern craniofacial surgery. Anatomical knowledge, meticulous surgical technique, and incorporation of emerging adjunctive technologies significantly enhance outcomes while minimizing morbidity. Continued research into minimally invasive techniques, regenerative medicine, functional restoration through advanced nerve transfers, and secondary refinement procedures is essential to further improve clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction, and overall quality of life.
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.