ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Perforator Versus Non-perforator Flap for Perineal Reconstruction: Long-Term Comparison of Complications and Quality of Life.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerineal reconstruction remains challenging due to complex anatomy, high bacterial load, and frequent postoperative complications. Extensive tissue defects after oncologic resection or severe infection commonly necessitate reconstructive procedures. Although myocutaneous flaps are widely used, perforator flaps offer advantages such as muscle preservation and reduced donor-site morbidity. Given the perineal region's critical role in defecation, urination, and sexual function, evaluating patients' quality of life (QoL) after reconstructive surgery is essential.
methodsThis single-center cohort study evaluated postoperative complication rates and QoL after perineal reconstruction with perforator versus non-perforator flaps from 2013 to 2023. All participants were invited to complete a postoperative QoL survey.
resultsOf all the patients, 58 % received a perforator-based and 40 % a non-perforator-based reconstruction. One patient (2.3 %) underwent a combined approach. The primary indication for perineal reconstruction (68.9 %) was defect coverage after oncologic resection. Both groups had a 50 % complication rate. Donor-site morbidity was higher in the non-perforator flap group, with all complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade III. Additional findings were exploratory: patient satisfaction was higher in the non-perforator flap group (100 % vs 66 %), although this group had a substantially longer follow-up period (4.14 vs 1.74 years). Conversely, numerically higher QoL scores were observed in the perforator flap group.
conclusionPerforator flaps demonstrated a more favorable donor-site profile, representing the most robust finding of this cohort. Observed differences in complications and patient-reported outcome measures are exploratory, and QoL continues to be insufficiently addressed in oncologic perineal reconstruction, underscoring the need for enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.