SynthesisCurrent medical science2026
Perforator Propeller Flap for Donor-Site Closure of the Lower Trapezius Musculocutaneous Flap: A Case Series and Systematic Review of Buddy Flap Techniques.
Synthesis in Current medical science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe lower trapezius musculocutaneous flap (LTMF) is a workhorse flap for the reconstruction of soft-tissue defects of the head and neck. However, when harvesting a large LTMF to repair massive defects, primary closure of the donor site may be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using a perforator propeller flap (PPF) for primary closure of LTMF donor sites and to analyze the buddy flap donor-site closure strategies through a comprehensive literature review.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent LTMF donor-site defect reconstruction using PPF between January 2015 and October 2025. Data on patient demographics, defect features, flap characteristics, postoperative complications, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. In addition, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies published before October 9, 2025, describing the use of an additional flap to close the donor site of a primary flap.
resultsSeventeen patients underwent donor-site reconstruction of LTMFs using PPFs. The harvested LTMFs measured an average of 29.8 × 11.5 cm. The PPFs measured an average of 15.7 cm in length and 5.9 cm in width. All donor sites were closed primarily, and all PPFs survived completely. Complications occurred in three cases, including two cases of distal partial necrosis of the LTMF and one wound dehiscence at the LTMF donor site. The distal necroses were managed with debridement followed by secondary local flap reconstruction, whereas the wound dehiscence healed after conservative treatment. In the literature review, 43 studies comprising 547 cases were identified. Three reconstructive categories were established: Type 1 (locoregional flap), Type 2 (distant pedicled flap), and Type 3 (free flap) donor-site closures. Primary closure was achieved in 97.1% of patients, with an overall complication rate of 15.4%. Commonly adopted donor-site closure techniques for harvesting large flaps from different anatomical regions were summarized, providing a comprehensive overview of region-specific reconstructive strategies and their clinical outcomes.
conclusionsThe PPF provides a safe and effective option for achieving primary closure of large LTMF donor sites. Using one flap to reconstruct the donor site of another large flap represents a reliable and versatile approach that facilitates primary closure while minimizing donor-site morbidity and adhering to the "like-with-like reconstruction" principle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41949716What 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.