MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411609679 · doi:10.1002/micr.70086

Free Flap Reconstruction in Burns: A Systematic Review of Current Practices and Evidence

2025· review· en· W4411609679 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrosurgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsCegep regional de Lanaudiere
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrosurgeryPerioperativeSurgeryBurn injuryMEDLINEReconstructive SurgeonEtiologyModalitiesFree flapIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of microsurgery remains extremely limited in burn management despite offering an alternative in cases where conventional burn reconstruction techniques fall short. This systematic review aims to evaluate the success of microsurgical burn reconstruction in both acute and chronic burn patients and compare it to other surgical modalities as reported in current literature. METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed/Google Scholar databases, spanning publications from 2005 to 2023. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Data were sorted into categories such as study details, patient demographics, burn information, surgical management, and outcomes. RESULTS: The studies encompassed 396 microsurgical reconstructions with a wide age range and varied anatomical regions for both primary and secondary reconstruction. The most common burn etiology was flame, and most acute burn surgeries were performed five to 22 days after injury. The most common acute and nonacute complications were partial necrosis and hematomas, respectively. Findings revealed an average success rate per flap of 92.7% and 95.7% for acute and reconstructive free flaps, respectively. CONCLUSION: Microsurgery offers a promising alternative for complex burn injuries where conventional reconstructive options are exhausted or fall short. However, its success is contingent on patient selection, timing of intervention, and perioperative patient care. The success rate and complication profile of acute microsurgical burn reconstruction are similar to that seen in trauma reconstruction. Secondary microsurgical burn reconstructions have similar success rates to those seen in other elective flaps, such as breast reconstruction. Current usage of microsurgery in burns is low, yet the majority of literature supports expanding its application in the field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it