ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Trends in Imaging Studies for Flap Reconstruction Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Imaging studies have become indispensable tools in the perforator flap surgeon's armamentarium, significantly enhancing operative outcomes and reducing complications. We conducted the first bibliometric analysis on imaging studies for flap reconstruction to characterize any emerging trends and assess the methodological quality of the field. Methods: The 100 most-cited articles in imaging studies for flap reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journals and years (1950-2024). Study details, including the citation count, main subject, outcome measures, imaging type, and evidence level, were extracted. Results: The most-cited articles involved 21,619 patients and amassed a total of 9689 citations. Citations per article ranged from 41 to 302. The evidence base relied heavily on level 3 (n = 37) and level 4 (n = 34) studies, reflecting the prevalence of retrospective cohorts and case series. Only 1 study was a randomized trial achieving level 1 evidence. Validated patient-reported outcome measures were reported in only 1 study. Imaging outcomes were the most explored, followed by flap anatomy and comparisons of imaging modality, with cost-effectiveness being the least investigated. Imaging was most frequently used for preoperative flap planning (n = 62), with fewer studies using intraoperative (n = 27) and postoperative (n = 19) imaging for perfusion assessment and complication detection. Computed tomography angiography, Doppler ultrasound, and indocyanine green ICG angiography were the most frequently used imaging modalities. Conclusions: The most influential studies lacked randomization and were conducted by single-center efforts. Promoting global collaboration and incorporating patient-reported outcome measures into high-quality research can advance a more patient-centered, holistic evaluation of reconstructive success.
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.