Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (847 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A mass of tissue, including skin and muscle, that has been cut away from surrounding areas for transplantation.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Flap, Myocutaneous; Flaps, Myocutaneous; Myocutaneous Flaps; Musculocutaneous Flap; Flap, Musculocutaneous; Flaps, Musculocutaneous; Musculocutaneous Flaps.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Surgical Flaps
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,138 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Myocutaneous Flap” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 425 of them (37.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 722 records.
Reviews account for 81 records (7.1%) and meta-analyses for 14. Randomized controlled trials number 10 (0.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 2 |
| 2010-2019 | 722 |
| 2020 onward | 425 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 81 | 7.1% |
| Meta-analyses | 14 | 1.2% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 10 | 0.9% |
Method: PubMed query "Myocutaneous Flap"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap for Head and Neck Defects in the Era of Free Flaps: Harvesting Technique and Indications [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- The role of the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF) in head and neck reconstruction is challenged recently due to its natural drawbacks and the popularity of free flaps.
- Closing excerpt
- PMMFs can safely be used in head and neck cancer patients who need salvage reconstruction, who are high risk for free flaps, and who need large volume soft-tissue flaps.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (200 words)
The role of the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF) in head and neck reconstruction is challenged recently due to its natural drawbacks and the popularity of free flaps. This study was designed to evaluate the indications and reliability of using a PMMF in the current free flap era based on a single center experience. The PMMF was harvested as a pedicle-skeletonized flap, with its skin paddle caudally and medially to the areola, including the third intercostal perforator, preserving the upper one third of the pectoralis major muscle. The harvested flap was passed via a submuscular tunnel over the clavicle. One hundred eighteen PMMFs were used in 114 patients, of which 76 were high-risk candidates for a free flap; 8 patients underwent total glossectomy, and 30 underwent salvage or emergency reconstruction. Major complications occurred in 4 patients and minor complications developed in 10. Tracheal extubation was possible in all cases, while oral intake was possible in all but 1 case. These techniques used in harvesting a PMMF significantly overcome its natural pitfalls. PMMFs can safely be used in head and neck cancer patients who need salvage reconstruction, who are high risk for free flaps, and who need large volume soft-tissue flaps.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28387356 · DOI · PMC5384233
Donor Site Morbidity of Patients Receiving Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap for Perineal, Vaginal or Inguinal Reconstruction [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundManagement of donor site closure after harvesting a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap is discussed heterogeneously in the literature.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionThe use of Vypro® mesh for donor site closure appears to be associated with a low postoperative incidence of complications and can therefore be recommended as a preferred technique.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (242 words)
BackgroundManagement of donor site closure after harvesting a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap is discussed heterogeneously in the literature. We aim to analyze the postoperative complications of the donor site depending on the closure technique.MethodsDuring a 12-year period (2003-2015), 192 patients in our department received transpelvic VRAM flap reconstruction. Prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively.Results182 patients received a VRAM flap reconstruction for malignant, 10 patients for benign disease. The median age of patients was 62 years. 117 patients (61%) received a reconstruction of donor site by Vypro® mesh, 46 patients (24%) by Vicryl® mesh, 23 patients (12%) by direct closure and 6 patients (3%) by combination of different meshes. 32 patients (17%) developed in total 34 postoperative complications at the donor site. 22 complications (11%) were treated conservatively, 12 (6%) surgically. 17 patients (9%) developed incisional hernia during follow-up, with highest incidence in the Vicryl® group (n = 8; 17%) and lowest in the Vypro® group (n = 7; 6%). Postoperative parastomal hernias were found in 30 patients (16%) including three patients with simultaneous hernia around an urostomy and a colostomy. The highest incidence of parastomal hernia was found in patients receiving primary closure of the donor site (n = 6; 26%), the lowest incidence in the Vypro® group (n = 16; 14%).ConclusionThe use of Vypro® mesh for donor site closure appears to be associated with a low postoperative incidence of complications and can therefore be recommended as a preferred technique.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32995931 · DOI · PMC7752873
A new surgical technique for concealed penis using an advanced musculocutaneous scrotal flap [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundUntil recently, no single, universally accepted surgical method has existed for all types of concealed penis repairs.
- Closing excerpt
- Lastly, it seems applicable in any type of concealed penis, including cases in which the ventral skin defect is difficult to cover.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (213 words)
BackgroundUntil recently, no single, universally accepted surgical method has existed for all types of concealed penis repairs. We describe a new surgical technique for repairing concealed penis by using an advanced musculocutaneous scrotal flap.MethodsFrom January 2010 to June 2014, we evaluated 12 patients (12-40 years old) with concealed penises who were surgically treated with an advanced musculocutaneous scrotal flap technique after degloving through a ventral approach. All the patients were scheduled for regular follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. The satisfaction grade for penile size, morphology, and voiding status were evaluated using a questionnaire preoperatively and at all of the follow-ups. Information regarding complications was obtained during the postoperative hospital stay and at all follow-ups.ResultsThe patients' satisfaction grades, which included the penile size, morphology, and voiding status, improved postoperatively compared to those preoperatively. All patients had penile lymphedema postoperatively; however, this disappeared within 6 weeks. There were no complications such as skin necrosis and contracture, voiding difficulty, or erectile dysfunction.ConclusionsOur advanced musculocutaneous scrotal flap technique for concealed penis repair is technically easy and safe. In addition, it provides a good cosmetic appearance, functional outcomes and excellent postoperative satisfaction grades. Lastly, it seems applicable in any type of concealed penis, including cases in which the ventral skin defect is difficult to cover.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 26088081 · DOI · PMC4471909
Collagen implant versus gluteus maximus flap for perineal closure after extended abdominoperineal excision: NEAPE randomized clinical trial [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundOptimal reconstruction of the perineal defect after extended abdominoperineal excision remains uncertain, and randomized comparisons between biological mesh and myocutaneous flaps are lacking.
- Closing excerpt
- gov NCT01347697.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (192 words)
BackgroundOptimal reconstruction of the perineal defect after extended abdominoperineal excision remains uncertain, and randomized comparisons between biological mesh and myocutaneous flaps are lacking. This trial assessed whether an acellular porcine collagen implant (APCI) is non-inferior to a gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap (GMF) for pelvic floor reconstruction.MethodsNEAPE was a multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority trial conducted in eight Nordic referral centres. Adults undergoing extended abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer were randomized to reconstruction with an APCI or unilateral GMF. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients underperforming in the timed-stands test at 6 months, defined relative to age- and sex-matched reference values. The non-inferiority margin was -10%.ResultsEighty-three patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (mean(standard deviation) age 68(10) years; 31% female). At 6 months, 71% of patients (25 of 35) in the implant group and 60% of patients (20 of 33) in the flap group underperformed. The risk difference was -11% (one-sided 95% confidence interval -30% to ∞), and non-inferiority was not demonstrated.ConclusionThe APCI did not demonstrate non-inferiority compared with the GMF. The direction of the effect favoured the flap, with results compatible with worse functional outcomes in the implant group.Registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT01347697.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42341212 · DOI · PMC13293247
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Primary versus Flap Closure of Perineal Defects following Oncologic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [5]
- Research article The Economy in Autologous Tissue Transfer: Part 1. The Kiss Flap Technique [6]
- Research article Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Versus Alternative Flaps for Perineal Repair After Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum in the Era of Laparoscopic Surgery [7]
- Research article Vertical rectus abdominis flap (VRAM) for perineal reconstruction following pelvic surgery: A systematic review [8]
- Research article Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis [9]
- Research article The temporalis muscle flap and temporoparietal fascial flap [10]
References
- Liu M, Liu W, Yang X, Guo H, Peng H. Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap for Head and Neck Defects in the Era of Free Flaps: Harvesting Technique and Indications. . 2017. PMID 28387356 · DOI · PMC5384233
- Schellerer VS, Bartholomé L, Langheinrich MC, Grützmann R, Horch RE, Merkel S, et al.. Donor Site Morbidity of Patients Receiving Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap for Perineal, Vaginal or Inguinal Reconstruction. . 2021. PMID 32995931 · DOI · PMC7752873
- Han DS, Jang H, Youn CS, Yuk SM. A new surgical technique for concealed penis using an advanced musculocutaneous scrotal flap. . 2015. PMID 26088081 · DOI · PMC4471909
- Rutegård M, Svensson J, Rutegård J, Rautio T, Nilsson PJ, Sjöström O, et al.. Collagen implant versus gluteus maximus flap for perineal closure after extended abdominoperineal excision: NEAPE randomized clinical trial. . 2026. PMID 42341212 · DOI · PMC13293247
- Devulapalli C, Jia Wei AT, DiBiagio JR, Baez ML, Baltodano PA, Seal SM, et al.. Primary versus Flap Closure of Perineal Defects following Oncologic Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016. PMID 26796372 · DOI
- Zhang YX, Hayakawa TJ, Levin LS, Hallock GG, Lazzeri D. The Economy in Autologous Tissue Transfer: Part 1. The Kiss Flap Technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016. PMID 26910687 · DOI
- Johnstone MS. Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Versus Alternative Flaps for Perineal Repair After Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum in the Era of Laparoscopic Surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2017. PMID 28542071 · DOI
- Radwan RW, Tang AM, Harries RL, Davies EG, Drew P, Evans MD. Vertical rectus abdominis flap (VRAM) for perineal reconstruction following pelvic surgery: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021. PMID 33317983 · DOI
- Yang XY, Wei MT, Yang XT, He YZ, Hao Y, Zhang XB, et al.. Primary vs myocutaneous flap closure of perineal defects following abdominoperineal resection for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2019. PMID 30428157 · DOI
- Lam D, Carlson ER. The temporalis muscle flap and temporoparietal fascial flap. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2014. PMID 25086696 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.