ReviewJPRAS open2025
Myelomeningocele closure: A review and decision-making guidance.
Review in JPRAS 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.
- Bilateral Lumbar Artery Perforator (LAP) Flaps for Extensive Lumbosacral Defects: A Report of Two Cases.Microsurgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myelomeningocele, the most severe neural tube defect, results from failed neural tube closure during embryogenesis, leading to herniation of the spinal cord and meninges through a vertebral defect. Early postnatal surgical intervention remains the standard of care to prevent infection, preserve neurological function, and achieve durable soft tissue coverage. Despite advances in reconstructive techniques, wound complications remain common, and consensus on the optimal technique and flap selection remains inconclusive. Objective: This review examines current evidence on postnatal myelomeningocele closure techniques, including flap-based reconstructive methods, aiming to guide flap selection based on defect characteristics. Results: Primary skin closure remains suitable for small defects (<20-25 cm² or width <5 cm), offering low morbidity but variable complication rates, particularly in larger lesions. Skin grafting, once commonly used, is now largely abandoned due to its poor long-term durability and tendency to induce kyphotic deformities. Local fasciocutaneous flaps, including Limberg rhomboid, V-Y advancement, keystone perforator island flaps, and the butterfly flap, demonstrate reliable outcomes in moderate to large defects, with low rates of cerebrospinal fluid leak, dehiscence, and flap necrosis. More extensive defects may necessitate musculocutaneous flaps (e.g., paraspinous, latissimus dorsi, gluteus maximus), which offer solid coverage but are associated with increased operative morbidity and potential functional impairment. Conclusion: Optimal myelomeningocele reconstruction requires individualized surgical planning guided by defect-specific parameters and surgical expertise. Flap selection should prioritize tension-free closure, minimal donor-site morbidity, and durability. This review proposes an algorithmic, anatomy-informed approach to assist clinicians in achieving favorable outcomes across a wide spectrum of myelomeningocele presentations.
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.