ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Wide Awake Facial Reconstruction: A Literature Review, Cost Analysis, and Practical Guide.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: General anesthesia (GA) has been the standard for complex facial reconstructive surgery but is associated with perioperative risks and increased resource consumption. Wide awake facial reconstruction (WAFR), performed under local anesthesia (LA)/regional anesthesia (RA), offers an alternative that avoids these limitations. Nonetheless, WAFR remains underreported, and best practices are not well established. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify studies involving WAFR, from which data were analyzed. Additionally, the costs of performing forehead flap reconstruction using LA/RA were compared with those under GA. Finally, a practical guide was developed to highlight key strategies for optimizing patient comfort. Results: Thirty studies involving 1249 patients and 1262 flaps were included. Forehead (n = 443, 35.1%) and nasolabial (n = 387, 30.7%) flaps were the most frequently implemented. Minor (n = 126, 10.0%) and major (n = 34, 2.7%) complications were uncommon. Most patients expressed minimal to no pain during surgery and were consistently satisfied with their experience. No conversions to GA were required. The total cost of performing a forehead flap using WAFR is considerably lower when compared with GA ($1280.03 versus $6646.74; difference: $5366.71). Conclusions: WAFR is a safe, well-tolerated and effective alternative to facial reconstruction under GA. Advanced procedures, such as loco-regional flaps, can be successfully performed under LA/RA. This approach also improves access to revision surgery, a key factor in achieving the best possible final outcomes. The avoidance of GA significantly reduces healthcare costs. Further research is needed to incorporate patient-reported outcomes and expand the role of WAFR across diverse techniques.
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.