ReviewJPRAS open2025
The evolution of perforator flaps and the future of microsurgery.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Clinical efficacy of pedicled double-perforator flap of the inferior epigastric artery in reconstructing the soft tissue defects following resection of cutaneous malignant tumors].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- [A brief discussion on microsurgery techniques and free perforator flaps for wound repair].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- [Clinical effects of harvesting superficial circumflex iliac artery PSP flaps via the subdermal approach to repair skin and soft tissue defects in hands and feet].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Reconstructive Surgery of the Female Genital, Urethral, and Anal Tract: A Multidisciplinary Review and Future Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforator flaps have transformed reconstructive microsurgery by enabling tissue-specific reconstruction while preserving muscle, fascia, and nerves, minimizing donor site morbidity. Modern techniques-including superthin, ultrathin, and pure skin flaps-enhance flap precision, safety, and versatility. Imaging tools such as CT angiography and high-resolution ultrasound allow accurate mapping of perforator anatomy, improving flap design and outcomes. Challenges like short pedicle length and flap thickness are addressed through perforator-to-perforator supermicrosurgery, enabling anastomosis of submillimeter vessels with minimal disruption. Advances in high-magnification microscopes, ultrafine microsutures, robotic platforms, and digital exoscopes further expand surgical capabilities, improve ergonomics, and shorten the learning curve. Looking ahead, artificial intelligence and augmented reality promise to automate microsurgical tasks, enhance visualization, and optimize functional and aesthetic results. Collectively, these innovations are pushing reconstructive microsurgery toward the "reconstructive elevator" ideal, achieving safer, more efficient, and highly customized outcomes for patients.
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.