ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluation of a perforator flap-based microsurgical training course: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur institution has conducted an annual perforator flap-based microsurgical training course for clinicians from different institutions. This study aims to characterize the post-training practice patterns and outcomes of the course.
methodsFrom 2016 to 2022, a two-week course was conducted annually, including three modules: theoretical lectures, cadaver-based surgical simulation, and live surgical demonstrations. A cross-sectional study was carried out among course participants in November 2024. Participant demographics, training backgrounds, course evaluations, and their clinical practice over the two years following the training were collected and analysed.
resultsA total of 279 two-year follow-up questionnaires were distributed, with a 74.6% response rate, yielding 208 completed questionnaires. On the basis of microsurgical experience, the trainees were divided into three groups: the inexperienced group (n = 34), intermediate group (n = 139), and experienced group (n = 35). The participants highly rated the course, with an overall score of 4.92 out of 5. Surgical simulation emerged as the most beneficial module. After training, 191 trainees (91.8%) performed perforator flap surgeries, with an average of 54 surgeries performed over 2 years and a success rate of 95.5%. The participation rate was 100% in the experienced group and 94.2% in the intermediate group, which was significantly higher than the 73.5% in the inexperienced group (p < 0.05). The mean procedure volume was significantly higher in both the experienced (56 cases) and intermediate (57 cases) groups than in the inexperienced group (37 cases) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe perforator flap-based microsurgical training course provides systematic training, covering theoretical lectures, cadaver-based surgical simulation, and live case surgical demonstrations. Participation in this course was associated with the successful clinical application of perforator flap techniques across all experience levels. The curriculum equipped surgeons with a structured foundation, enabling them to implement these procedures with a high degree of proficiency.
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.