ReviewJPRAS open2026
Recipient vessel selection for microvascular chest wall reconstruction: A narrative review and decision support framework.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recipient vessel selection is a critical determinant of success in microvascular chest wall reconstruction. While the internal mammary and thoracodorsal vessels are most frequently used, prior surgery, radiotherapy, or flap design may necessitate alternative or salvage options. Despite its importance, no unified framework currently guides systematic vessel selection across reconstructive scenarios. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted across PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to August 2025. Studies reporting clinical outcomes, anatomical considerations, or vessel-specific complications in chest wall free flap reconstruction were included. Data were extracted from peer-reviewed studies, including case reports, case series, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Results: Multiple recipient vessel systems are described, including the internal mammary, thoracodorsal, internal mammary perforator, thoracoacromial, lateral thoracic, circumflex scapular, intercostal, and cervical vessels, as well as vein grafts and arteriovenous loops. Each option demonstrates distinct advantages and limitations influenced by defect location, prior surgery or radiotherapy, pedicle requirements, preoperative assessment, and intraoperative vessel quality. Existing guidance on recipient vessel selection remains fragmented and is largely confined to breast reconstruction or institution-specific practice. Conclusion: This review summarises current evidence on recipient vessel selection in microvascular chest wall reconstruction and proposes a structured, evidence-informed decision-support framework. The framework is intended to aid preoperative planning and intraoperative strategy while recognising that final vessel choice must be tailored to individual patient factors and intraoperative findings.
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.