ReviewCureus2026
Surgical Approaches to Perineal Reconstruction: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reconstruction of the perineum remains one of the most demanding fields in reconstructive surgery. The region combines a contaminated operative field, a high prevalence of prior radiotherapy, complex three-dimensional dead space, and functional structures (the anus, urethra, and vagina) whose preservation or restoration directly determines the quality of life. The principal indications for perineal reconstruction are oncologic resection, most commonly abdominoperineal resection and pelvic exenteration for anorectal and gynecologic malignancy, radical vulvectomy, and the soft tissue destruction produced by Fournier gangrene. This narrative review traces the historical evolution of perineal reconstruction from the era of open wound packing to modern perforator flap surgery, summarizes the anatomic and physiologic principles that underpin flap-based repair, and appraises the current evidence for the main reconstructive options, including primary closure, biologic mesh, omental flaps, the vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap, gluteal and thigh-based flaps, and fasciocutaneous perforator flaps such as the lotus petal flap. Comparative data from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the recent BIOPEX-2 and Nordic Extended Abdominoperineal Excision (NEAPE) randomized trials are discussed, together with functional, sexual, and quality of life outcomes and reconstructive strategy in Fournier gangrene. A defect-oriented algorithmic approach, tailored to the resection performed, the radiation field, patient factors, and donor site availability, currently offers the most rational framework for choosing among reconstructive options.
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.