ArticleScientific reports2026
Intraindividual comparison of imaging modalities in anterolateral thigh perforator mapping.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Accurate knowledge of perforator vessels is crucial for successful perforator flap surgery. The purpose of this prospective, single-center study was to compare three imaging modalities, color-coded duplex sonography (CCDS), flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) and non-contrast time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA), for preoperative perforator mapping in anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flap reconstruction. Assessment of detection rates, accuracy of the fascial emergence point localization and the accuracy in predicting the subfascial course of perforators was performed using intraoperative findings as the reference standard. This study included ten patients, with 17 perforators identified preoperatively and 15 included in the ALT flap design. CCDS demonstrated the highest observed sensitivity for perforator detection (94%), followed by TOF-MRA (91%) and FPCT (87%) (p = 0.82). FPCT showed a slightly higher proportion (25%) of markings beyond a 2 cm radius from the fascial emergence point compared to CCDS (6%) and TOF-MRA (0%) (p = 0.31). One FPCT inaccuracy was linked to mobilization of the thigh during the examination. Regarding prediction of the perforator course, FPCT showed lower observed accuracy (50%) compared with CCDS (93%) and TOF-MRA (82%) with an overall statistically significant difference between modalities (p = 0.033). This study suggests that CCDS provides high accuracy for perforator detection and prediction of the perforator course, however requiring a certain amount of examiner experience. TOF-MRA, a non-contrast angiographic imaging method, shows to be a reliable, less-examiner dependent alternative making it especially suitable for centers with lower surgical volumes. FPCT is particularly valuable in patients who already require contrast-enhanced vascular imaging of the affected extremity. However, accurate assessment of perforators using FPCT requires consistent immobilization of the patient's lower extremity.
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.