ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Recurrent giant neurofibroma of the posterior neck and upper back with failed primary grafting and salvage reconstruction: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Giant or recurrent neurofibromas associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) may mimic vascular tumors and create large reconstructive defects, particularly in mobile regions. We report a recurrent posterior neck and upper-back neurofibroma with failure of primary grafting and subsequent salvage reconstruction. Case presentation: A 23-year-old woman had previously undergone an aborted operation for a lesion diagnosed as hemangioma; postoperative pathology showed neurofibroma. The recurrent mass was excised along the superficial aspect of the deep fascia with an estimated blood loss of approximately 100 mL, leaving a defect involving about 7% of total body surface area. A split-thickness graft harvested from clinically preserved skin overlying the tumor failed after subgraft seroma formation and Klebsiella pneumoniae infection, with approximately 20% graft take. Salvage treatment consisted of repeat debridement, culture-directed infection control, a 1:3 meshed split-thickness graft from the thigh, negative-pressure wound therapy adapted into separate neck and back dressing zones, and postoperative immobilization. Graft take was complete. At 6 months, no recurrence was detected, neck motion was preserved, the Vancouver Scar Scale score was 3, and the Neck Disability Index score was 5. Conclusions: This case emphasizes accurate diagnosis, careful selection of graft donor skin, adequate wound-bed preparation, infection control, secure graft fixation, and immobilization in a high-mobility region. Dividing the negative-pressure dressing into separate zones was a practical modification for this wound rather than a novel reconstructive principle, and broader recommendations cannot be made from a single case.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.