Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorAltıparmak, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorCha, Han Gyu
dc.contributor.authorHong, Joon P.
dc.contributor.authorSuh, Hyunsuk Peter
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-20T14:30:01Z
dc.date.available2020-11-20T14:30:01Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0743-684X
dc.identifier.issn1098-8947
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713666
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12809/315
dc.description0000-0003-3059-1334en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000565591600008en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 32599623en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground There are various advantages and disadvantages attributed to superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap. The aim of this study is to evaluate the versatility and reliability of free SCIP flap by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature in terms of flap characteristics, pedicle types, and outcomes, including the different types of flap elevations. Methods PubMed, Embase OVID, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to January 2019. All original articles and case reports published in English were included in the analysis. Anatomic descriptions, cadaveric studies, conference presentations, letter to the editors, local SCIP flaps, and review articles were excluded. Results A total of 36 articles including 907 SCIP flaps were available for the analysis. The most frequent causes of defects were tumors (38.2%) and lower extremities were the most common recipient areas (62.7%). The average flap dimension was 73.323.0cm (2) with a pedicle length of 5.0 +/- 0.6cm. Vessel diameter average was 0.67 +/- 0.12mm. The average number of deep branch and superficial branch used per study was 14.4 +/- 8.7 (18%) and 93.3 +/- 75.0 (84%), respectively. Flap failure rate and complication rate were 2.7 and 4.2%, respectively. Conclusion SCIP flaps have been shown to be versatile in various aspects of reconstruction. The attributed disadvantages such as having short pedicle and small vessel diameter do not seem to limit the variable usage of this flap. Therefore, SCIP flap should be considered a workhorse flap.en_US
dc.item-language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherThieme Medical Publ Incen_US
dc.item-rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectSuperficial Circumflex Iliac Arteryen_US
dc.subjectPerforator Flapen_US
dc.subjectMeta-Analysisen_US
dc.titleSuperficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap as a Workhorse Flap: Systematic Review and Meta-analysisen_US
dc.item-typereviewen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimlerien_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorAltıparmak, Mehmet
dc.identifier.doi10.1055/s-0040-1713666
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.issue08en_US
dc.identifier.startpage600en_US
dc.identifier.endpage605en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryDiğeren_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster