ReviewGland surgery2025
Profunda artery perforator characteristics and outcomes: a systematic review.
Review in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap is a versatile autologous tissue option for breast reconstruction, offering a secondary option when the traditional abdominal-based flaps are not available. This study aims to systematically evaluate the use of the PAP flap in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) by analyzing patient characteristics, flap parameters, surgical outcomes, and patient-reported satisfaction. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of databases for studies the use of the PAP flap within ABR, namely, measures of patient characteristics, flap profile, surgical measures, and surgical/satisfaction outcomes. We excluded cadaveric, non-breast, and secondary research studies. Results: A total of 30 studies were included in our systematic review. Mean pooled values and (standard deviations) reported in the studies were as follows: age of patients was 48.16 (3.51) years; body mass index (BMI) was 24.20 (1.87) kg/m Conclusions: The PAP flap is a well-studied, continually refined option for ABR. Its use is dependent on surgeon experience and patient profile. The classic tPAP and newer vPAP display similar outcomes and can be utilized on an individualized, case-by-case basis. Relatively novel PAP flap variants, such as extended and fleur-de-PAP, require further study before they can be recommended as possible options in ABR.
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.