ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
A Meta-analysis of Nontraditional Uses of Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flaps.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is well established for breast reconstruction, yet its use in other anatomical regions remains insufficiently characterized. Existing literature consists largely of narrative reviews and isolated case reports. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of the DIEP flap in nonbreast reconstructive surgery. Methods: A systematic search was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Of 328 initial titles, 117 articles underwent full-text review, and 89 studies met inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 467 patients underwent nonbreast reconstruction using the DIEP flap. The mean age was 46.24 (range, 19-78) years. Reconstructions were performed in the head and neck (n = 122), lower limb (n = 115), upper limb (n = 95), vaginal region (n = 72), hip and thigh (n = 41), and trunk (n = 22). Nineteen total flap losses were reported, yielding an overall pooled survival rate of 96%. Region-specific survival rates were as follows: head and neck, 97%; lower limb, 93%; upper limb, 95%; vaginal, 95%; hip and thigh, 98%; and trunk, 95%. Donor-site morbidity was low, with only 13 cases (2.78%) reporting complications; the remaining 454 (97.22%) patients achieved primary donor-site closure without adverse events. Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates that the DIEP flap is a reliable option for reconstruction beyond the breast, with consistently high survival rates across multiple anatomical regions and minimal donor-site morbidity. These findings support the DIEP flap as a versatile and effective reconstructive tool, particularly in complex cases requiring durable soft tissue coverage and favorable functional outcomes.
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.