ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Reconstruction of traumatic forefoot defects with free lateral arm flap.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the results of traumatic soft tissue defects of the forefoot reconstructed using the lateral arm flap and to examine the advantages and disadvantages of this flap. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween January 2007 and December 2023, a total of 25 patients (23 males, 2 females; median age: 35 years; range, 8 to 57 years) who underwent lateral arm free flap reconstruction for forefoot soft tissue defects were retrospectively analyzed. Age, sex, injury mechanism, flap size, anastomosis site, vascular complications, associated injuries, functional results, donor site coverage, and aesthetic results of the operation rated by the patient and surgeons were noted. The recovery of sensation at the reconstructed site was also evaluated.
resultsThe median follow-up was 24.8 (range, 15 to 44) months. Only one total flap loss was encountered in this study, with an overall flap survival rate of 96%. Debulking of the flap was necessitated in four patients for comfortable shoe wear; those flaps were used to cover sizeable dorsal defects of the foot. The median European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) daily living score at the final evaluation was 18.2 (range, 17 to 21). All patients were able to wear regular shoes without modifications. All flaps regained protective sensation, although in none of them a neurography was performed. In the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (SWM) testing, 18 patients could feel 4.56, four patients 6.65, and three patients 4.31. The patient-rated satisfaction score for reconstruction averaged 3,7 on a five-point scale.
conclusionReconstruction of forefoot soft tissue defects using the lateral arm flap provided satisfactory results in terms of successful soft tissue coverage, function, and patient satisfaction, with good cosmetic appearance and unrestricted shoe wear. Based on these findings, this flap is a good alternative for forefoot reconstruction owing to its ease of dissection, constant vascular anatomy, rich blood supply, and limited thickness. In addition, it does not sacrifice a major artery, does not limit the function of the arm, and the donor site can be closed primarily in most cases. The main disadvantage of the flap seems to be the conspicuous scar it leaves on the lateral aspect of the arm.
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.