ArticleJPRAS open2026
Evolution of cervicofacial flaps: From classical reconstruction to Freestyle Multiperforator Island Flap.
Article in JPRAS open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study presents a cost-effective and safe alternative for facial reconstruction, introducing the concept of the Freestyle Multiperforator Island Flap (FMIF) a subcutaneously based flap that can be customized in both location and size. Its versatility stems from the extensive vascular cutaneous territories supplied by the dermal and facial plexuses, which branch in an arborescent pattern to ensure reliable perfusion across multiple facial regions. Methods: A retrospective case series of 34 patients (37 flaps) with cheek defects treated between 2012 and 2022 is presented. Demographic profiles, defect etiology, flap characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 37 flaps were performed in 34 patients. The most common etiology was malignant tumors (83.7 %), squamous cell carcinoma (43.2 %), basal cell carcinoma (29.7 %), and melanoma (10.8 %), followed by benign tumors (10.8 %) and others (5.4 %).Twenty-five flaps were used for the reconstruction of the parotid-masseteric subunit, with 54 % designed at a flap-to-defect ratio ranging from 5:1 to 10:1.In 29 flaps (78.37 %), the average pedicle area was 16.2 % (range: 10 %-20 %).Regarding outcomes, major complications occurred in five flaps, with partial necrosis and dehiscence being the most frequent (5.4 % each). No total flap loss was reported. Conclusions: The FMIF offers a safe, versatile, and cost-conscious option for facial reconstruction, providing reliable perfusion and minimal donor-site morbidity through its adaptable pedicle design. Although early outcomes are favorable, the absence of a control group limits definitive conclusions. Future comparative and anatomical studies are required to validate its vascular basis, safety, and role alongside established reconstructive techniques.
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.