Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41808964›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base2026

Reconstruction of Clival Defects using Vascularized Free and Pedicled Flaps: Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithms.

Nitish Kumar, Brent A Chang, Michael J Marino, Amar Miglani, Lisa A Marks, Pedro Lança Gomes, Devyani Lal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nitish KumarDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.ORCID 0000-0001-9923-9254
Brent A ChangDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Michael J MarinoDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Amar MiglaniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Lisa A MarksDivision of Education, Department of Library Services, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Pedro Lança GomesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Devyani LalDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reconstruction of clival defects may be challenging in expanded endonasal skull base surgery. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the outcomes of vascularized flaps used for clival reconstruction. Methodology: The following databases were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords related to clival reconstruction in July 2024: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies reporting outcomes of clival reconstruction with vascularized free and pedicled flaps in patients were selected for complete review. Results: Twenty-three studies were included for detailed study. Clival reconstruction with free flaps was done in 18 patients; 17 had a successful repair, outcome was not reported for 1. Facial vessels were preferred for microvascular anastomosis. Radial artery forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap were most utilized. Pedicled flaps were used in 68 patients, with reported success in 85.3%. Nasoseptal flap was the most common intranasal flap, used in 34 patients with successful reconstruction in 85.3%. Temporoparietal fascia flap was the most common extranasal flap, successfully used in 13 patients. Intranasal pedicled flaps, wherever available, were preferably used for primary reconstruction; extranasal flaps were the next choice. Free flaps were reserved for salvage reconstruction due to prior failed or unavailable local pedicled flaps. Conclusion: Satisfactory reconstructive outcomes are reported using pedicled and free flaps. The flap of choice is determined by the previous surgical history, radiotherapy, wound vascularity, defect size, overall health of the surrounding nasal mucosa, simultaneous clival surgery, and the preferred pedicle transposition route (free flaps).

Indexed as

clival reconstructionfree flapnasopharyngeal tumorosteoradionecrosispedicled flap

Identifiers

PMID41808964
PMCPMC12971240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.