Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41280473›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2025

Beyond function: Aesthetic considerations in pedicled abdominal flaps for upper limb reconstruction.

Mohamed Sabry, Amr Khairy Abdelhakim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mohamed SabryLecturer of plastic and reconstructive surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Minia University Hospital, kornish Elnile, Minia, Egypt.
Amr Khairy AbdelhakimLecturer of plastic and reconstructive surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Minia University Hospital, kornish Elnile, Minia, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Aesthetic outcomeFunctional outcomeHand reconstructionPedicled abdominal flapUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID41280473
PMCPMC12634826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.