ReviewJPRAS open2026
Major limb replantation: Current status and perspectives.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Major limb replantation is a demanding microsurgical procedure aiming to restore form and function after traumatic amputation. Although survival has improved since the 1960s, ischemia, infection, and complex reconstruction continue to limit outcomes. Emerging preservation and reconstructive strategies may help expand indications and improve results. Methods: For this scoping review, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through December 2024 using predefined MeSH terms related to major limb replantation. Adult case series and reports were included; pediatric cases and long-term follow-up studies were excluded. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by three reviewers, with consensus resolution of discrepancies. Results: Ninety-nine publications reported outcomes in 1107 patients with traumatic amputations. The mean age was 31.6 years (range 17-63). Upper-limb replantation represented 88% of cases, most commonly at the forearm and elbow. Mean cold ischemia time was 10 ± 8 h and mean warm ischemia time 4.4 ± 2.3 h. Static cold storage was predominant (72%), while ex vivo dynamic perfusion and ectopic replantation were selectively applied. Overall replantation success was 68%, highest after sharp amputations (85%) and lower following crush (45%) and avulsion (55%) injuries. Vascular complications, infection, and systemic inflammatory response accounted for most failures. Conclusions: Major limb replantation remains constrained by ischemia-reperfusion injury and surgical complexity. New preservation techniques, adjunctive microsurgery, and optimized perioperative care show potential to improve viability and function. Continued multidisciplinary advancement is essential to strengthen outcomes and accessibility in both civilian and military trauma care.
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.