Objective:This paper briefly reviewed the literature related to skin flaps published in Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery ( CJPS) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ( PRS) in recent five years (from January 2016 to December 2020) to compare the similarities and differences between these two journals and to direct future research. Methods:In May of 2021, literature with "flap" as the keyword in the titles and abstracts published in CJPS and PRS in recent five years were searched. Related literature published by CJPS were searched by Wanfang Data and CNKI database, and that of PRS were searched by PubMed and Scopus database. After removing the repetitive literature, the titles and abstracts were read to exclude the non-flap studies and non-original articles. By reading the full text and using bibliometrics, the total number of papers published, the number of papers on flap research, the level of evidence-based medicine evidence, the nationality and organization distribution of the authors, the type of flaps, the application of flaps, and new technologies were comprehensively analyzed. Results:The total number of papers published by CJPS in recent five years was 1 116, and 244 were included in this study. The total number of articles published in PRS in the same period was 4 562, and 268 were included in this study. Most of the articles published in PRS are from American authors. The number of articles published by Chinese authors is in the second place. In the past five years, authors from the mainland of China published 21 papers in PRS. Most of the articles published by CJPS are about the pedicle flap, while PRS is about the free flap. CJPS published more articles about the traditional flaps than perforator flaps, and PRS did the opposite. CJPS published articles mainly on the local flap, anterolateral thigh flap, and peroneal artery perforator flap, while PRS focused on the inferior epigastric artery perforator fibula bone or osteocutaneous flap, and anterolateral thigh flap. The indication of flap surgery reported by CJPS is the reconstruction of various defects, while the flaps reported by PRS are mainly used in breast reconstruction and other fields. In addition, computer-aided imaging, indocyanine green angiography, propeller flap, multilobed flap, and other new technologies and concepts have been widely reported in the literature related to skin flaps published in CPJS and PRS. Conclusions:In the recent five years, the flap research in China has been at the leading international level and has certain competitiveness. However, the study in China is limited to reporting clinical experience, and the level of evidence-based medicine is relatively low, so there is still a certain gap with the international frontier research.

Objective:This paper briefly reviewed the literature related to skin flaps published in Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery ( CJPS) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ( PRS) in recent five years (from January 2016 to December 2020) to compare the similarities and differences between these two journals and to direct future research. Methods:In May of 2021, literature with "flap" as the keyword in the titles and abstracts published in CJPS and PRS in recent five years were searched. Related literature published by CJPS were searched by Wanfang Data and CNKI database, and that of PRS were searched by PubMed and Scopus database. After removing the repetitive literature, the titles and abstracts were read to exclude the non-flap studies and non-original articles. By reading the full text and using bibliometrics, the total number of papers published, the number of papers on flap research, the level of evidence-based medicine evidence, the nationality and organization distribution of the authors, the type of flaps, the application of flaps, and new technologies were comprehensively analyzed. Results:The total number of papers published by CJPS in recent five years was 1 116, and 244 were included in this study. The total number of articles published in PRS in the same period was 4 562, and 268 were included in this study. Most of the articles published in PRS are from American authors. The number of articles published by Chinese authors is in the second place. In the past five years, authors from the mainland of China published 21 papers in PRS. Most of the articles published by CJPS are about the pedicle flap, while PRS is about the free flap. CJPS published more articles about the traditional flaps than perforator flaps, and PRS did the opposite. CJPS published articles mainly on the local flap, anterolateral thigh flap, and peroneal artery perforator flap, while PRS focused on the inferior epigastric artery perforator fibula bone or osteocutaneous flap, and anterolateral thigh flap. The indication of flap surgery reported by CJPS is the reconstruction of various defects, while the flaps reported by PRS are mainly used in breast reconstruction and other fields. In addition, computer-aided imaging, indocyanine green angiography, propeller flap, multilobed flap, and other new technologies and concepts have been widely reported in the literature related to skin flaps published in CPJS and PRS. Conclusions:In the recent five years, the flap research in China has been at the leading international level and has certain competitiveness. However, the study in China is limited to reporting clinical experience, and the level of evidence-based medicine is relatively low, so there is still a certain gap with the international frontier research.