ReviewJPRAS open2026
Salvage flap reconstruction for recurrent head and neck cancer after radiotherapy: A systematic review.
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.
- Safe and Time-Saving Method for Pharyngeal Reconstruction Using an Internal Mammary Artery Perforator Flap.Archives of plastic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) after radiotherapy presents a reconstructive challenge. Whether pedicled or free flap reconstruction leads to better outcomes remains unclear. This review aims to assess the outcomes of pedicled and free flap reconstruction in patients with recurrent HNC after radiotherapy. Method: The protocol was developed prospectively, peer-reviewed and registered on the PROSPERO database. A search strategy was designed and conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase (1990-2024). Additional sources included hand searches, citation searches, and clinical trial registers. 9233 titles and abstracts were screened, full-text of 422 reports reviewed, and 27 cohort studies included. Quality assessment was performed using standardised risk of bias tools. Results: 27 cohort studies, representing a total of 6879 participants and 5919 flaps, were included. All studies included patients who underwent flap reconstruction for salvage of recurrent HNC following radiotherapy. Included study designs precluded a direct comparative analysis of differences between flap types. Reporting of patient-relevant outcomes such as swallowing or quality of life was poor. For free flaps, total flap loss ranged from 0 to 29 % and partial flap loss ranged from 0 to 14.7 %. The certainty of the evidence was judged to be very low. Conclusions: Reconstruction for recurrent HNC after radiotherapy can be achieved with consistency using pedicled or free flaps. A direct comparison cannot be made with available data. The heterogeneity in study designs and lack of comprehensive or patient-relevant outcome reporting underscore the evidence gap and need for well-designed studies to better inform clinical decision-making.
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.