ArticleBMC surgery2026
CTA-guided preoperative perforator selection for knee soft tissue reconstruction.
Article in BMC 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerforator flaps represent an effective and versatile option for the reconstruction of soft tissue defects around the knee. However, interindividual variability in perforator origin, course, and pedicle characteristics often complicates flap selection and increases intraoperative uncertainty. This study aimed to evaluate the role of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in guiding perforator selection and supporting individualized preoperative planning for knee soft tissue reconstruction.
methodsBetween August 2014 and March 2024, we retrospectively evaluated 16 patients who underwent 17 flap procedures after preoperative CTA for reconstruction of soft tissue defects around the knee. The location, course, and length of candidate perforators were evaluated using the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Based on comparative preoperative assessment, the most suitable perforator was selected for flap design.
resultsSeventeen flaps were harvested in 16 patients, including 16 CTA-selected perforator-based flaps and one random-pattern local flap selected after CTA showed no suitable perforator. All 16 CTA-selected target perforators were identified intraoperatively as anticipated, yielding a target-perforator identification discrepancy rate of 0/16. Complete skin-paddle survival was achieved in 15 of 16 CTA-selected perforator-based flaps and in 16 of 17 flaps overall. One CTA-selected perforator flap developed partial distal necrosis and healed conservatively; no total flap loss occurred. The random-pattern local flap survived completely without complications.
conclusionCTA provided a practical decision-support method for preoperative assessment of perforator anatomy around the knee. In this proof-of-concept retrospective Level IV case series, the structured CTA-guided workflow was feasible and showed qualitative concordance with intraoperative findings, supporting individualized flap planning according to defect characteristics and perforator anatomy. Because no Doppler-only, non-CTA, or historical control group was included, these findings demonstrate feasibility and anatomical concordance rather than measurable clinical superiority over other mapping modalities.
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.