ReviewMicrosurgery2026
Autonomization of Microvascular Free Flaps in Reconstructive Surgery: A Narrative Review.
Review in Microsurgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Autonomization of Microvascular Free Flaps in Reconstructive Surgery: A Narrative Review.Microsurgery · 2026Review
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
backgroundMicrovascular free tissue transfer is a key technique in reconstructive surgery, enabling functional and aesthetic restoration of complex defects. While initial flap survival relies on the vascular pedicle, some flaps may become independent through a process known as autonomization, where new vascular connections form between the flap and recipient site. Understanding the timeline, mechanisms, and clinical relevance of this process is essential for safe surgical planning and postoperative interventions.
methodsA narrative review was conducted to synthesize current literature on microvascular flap autonomization. Databases including PubMed and Google Scholar were searched up to June 2025, focusing on studies examining flap selection, neovascularization, perfusion monitoring, and predictors of flap vascular independence. Articles were screened based on relevance, methodological quality, and clinical applicability.
resultsFlap autonomization showed heterogeneous timelines in literature. Skin and muscle flaps generally tolerated earlier pedicle compromise than jejunal or osteocutaneous flaps, while tissue composition, vascular contact area, recipient bed quality, and comorbidities strongly influenced revascularization. Favorable conditions-such as thin fasciocutaneous or muscle flaps on well-perfused beds-were associated with earlier integration, whereas irradiated tissue and systemic vascular disease delayed independence. Monitoring tools (ICG angiography, laser Doppler, NIRS) aided perfusion assessment but could not confirm full autonomization. Complications were linked to delayed or incomplete neovascularization, particularly during secondary procedures. Adjunctive strategies, including ischemic conditioning and flap "training," showed potential to promote vascular remodeling, but clinical evidence remains limited.
conclusionFlap autonomization is a critical but poorly understood process that varies by flap type and patient context. Despite early neovascular activity, the lack of reliable markers necessitates conservative postoperative protocols. Emerging technologies and bioengineered strategies hold promise but require further validation. Standardized criteria to assess vascular independence could significantly improve outcomes in microvascular reconstructive surgery.
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.