ArticleJPRAS open2025
Beyond function: Aesthetic considerations in pedicled abdominal flaps for upper limb reconstruction.
Article 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pedicled abdominal flaps (PAFs) represent an established approach for reconstructing the upper extremity, offering robust coverage and minimal donor-site morbidity. Most studies focus on functional outcomes and complications; however, there is a paucity of literature examining patient and physician satisfaction regarding aesthetic results following reconstruction. Objective: This retrospective study aimed to assess pedicled abdominal flap efficacy and safety in upper limb reconstruction, examining flap survival, complications, aesthetic outcomes, and surgeon assessment. Methods: The study included 16 patients who underwent reconstruction using PAFs between January 2022 and February 2025. The distribution of vascular territories used for flap reconstruction was as follows: (SIEA) alone in one case (6.3 %), (SCIA) in eight cases (50 %), (PUP) flap in five cases (31.3 %), and a combination of SIEA + SCIA in two cases (12.5 %). Aesthetic outcomes were assessed via patient and physician satisfaction surveys. Additionally, complications and donor-site morbidity were analyzed. Results: The surgical outcomes demonstrated a high flap survival rate of 93.8 %, indicating generally favorable results. Wound infection occurred in 25 % of cases. Physicians generally reported higher satisfaction levels across most domains than patients, although both groups exhibited acceptable results. No major donor-site morbidity was observed. Conclusion: PAFs represent a reliable and efficient method for upper limb reconstruction, achieving favorable aesthetic outcomes with high flap survival and low complication rates. Notably, aesthetics emerged as a critical outcome domain, with patient and Physician evaluations highlighting their importance.
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.