SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
A comprehensive evaluation of flap reconstruction in periocular repair: outcomes, complications, and future directions.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of rigid contact lens use on visual acuity and vision-related quality of life in keratoconus.International ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Modified Fricke's Cheek Flap for Periorbital Reconstruction: A Regional Alternative to Forehead-Based Flaps.Cureus · 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
purposeTo conduct a systematic evaluation of reconstructive techniques for the periocular area and eyelids, highlighting their functional and cosmetic outcomes, complications, and future advancements.
methodA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science using terminology related to oculofacial flaps. Studies were included if they utilized flap techniques for periocular repair, represented original peer-reviewed research, and met defined eligibility criteria. Data concerning patient demographics, types of defects, reconstructive techniques, results, and complications were extracted and analyzed.
resultsFrom an initial 1975 publications, 55 studies met the inclusion requirements. Techniques such as Mustardé cheek rotation, modified rhomboid, and paramedian forehead flaps were primarily utilized, with basal cell carcinoma as the principal cause of abnormalities. Complications were primarily mild, including tip necrosis (13.5%), wound dehiscence, and ectropion. Innovative methods like propeller flaps and the LOOP flap demonstrated improved cosmetic and functional outcomes for substantial defects. Challenges remain in achieving oncological safety and patient-centered aesthetics in complex reconstructions.
conclusionThe diversity of therapies underscores the imperative of tailoring reconstructive techniques to the particular attributes of the defect and the patient's goals. Advancements in flap design have expanded surgical options; yet, issues like result unpredictability and the necessity for long-term monitoring persist. Continuous research is vital to enhance techniques and develop innovative solutions, hence improving the quality of care for patients undergoing periocular reconstruction.
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.