ReviewJPRAS open2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of soft tissue reconstruction following debridement of tibial osteomyelitis: Comparing muscle and fasciocutaneous flaps.
Review in JPRAS 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.
- Anatomical study of the medial sural artery perforator flap and its application in the reconstruction of infected defects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Tibial osteomyelitis is a serious condition, often resulting from trauma or orthopedic surgery, frequently requiring soft tissue reconstruction after debridement. This systemic review and meta-analysis compared outcomes of muscle versus fasciocutaneous flap reconstruction following debridement of tibial osteomyelitis. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed Central, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies evaluating muscle and fasciocutaneous flap reconstruction following tibial osteomyelitis debridement were included. Non-comparative studies with only one flap type were excluded to reduce bias. Primary outcomes included osteomyelitis recurrence and flap failure; secondary outcomes assessed amputation rates and patient satisfaction. Results: Six studies encompassing 207 patients (219 flaps) were included. The meta-analysis showed a trend towards lower osteomyelitis recurrence rate in the fasciocutaneous flaps, although this was not statistically significant in one scenario (odds ratio [OR] 3.35, 95 % CI 1.14-9.90 and OR 2.69 95 % CI 0.93-7.74). Significant flap loss rates were comparable, with no statistically significant difference (OR 1.68 95 % CI 0.45-6.25 and OR 1.12 95 % CI 0.30-4.23). Amputation rates were similar between flap types (OR 3.06 95 % CI 0.46-20.38). One study reported higher satisfaction with fasciocutaneous flaps regarding appearance ( Conclusion: Both flap types effectively support reconstruction in tibial osteomyelitis, providing well-vascularized tissue to help reduce recurrence. Our study focused on the tibia, a bone particularly vulnerable to trauma and devascularization, and identified that muscle and fasciocutaneous flap coverage provided similar clinical outcomes.
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.