Suprafascial versus traditional harvesting technique for free antero lateral thigh flap: A case‐control study to assess the best functional and aesthetic result in extremity reconstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clinical applications of ALT flap have currently extended to extremity (hand and foot) as well as oral cavity reconstruction. In these anatomical areas, the traditional harvesting technique presents a few disadvantages such as bulkiness of the recipient site and potential donor site morbidity including damage to the deep fascia and skin graft adhesions. The purpose of the present study was to compare the functional and aesthetic outcomes of upper and lower extremity reconstruction with either suprafascial or subfascial harvested anterolateral (ALT) flaps. Sixty patients who underwent hand or foot reconstruction with an ALT flap between January 2013 and January 2015 were included in the study (34 flaps elevated on a subfascial plane and 26 on a suprafascial plane). Group 1 (subfascial harvested ALT flap) was composed of 23 male and 11 female patients with an average age of 53.4 years (range, 36–72 years). Group 2 (suprafascial harvested ALT flap) was composed of 18 male and 8 female patients with an average age of 48.7 years (range, 32–69 years). Surgical indication was tumor resection for 20 patients in group 1 and 16 patients in group 2, chronic ulcer for 8 patients in group 1 and 6 patients in group 2, and trauma for 6 patients in group 1 and 4 patients in group 2. Complications were documented. Aesthetic outcomes were considered in terms of bulkiness of the recipient site, subsequent request for a debulking procedure, and donor site morbidity. Donor site scars were evaluated for cosmesis using a modified Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale (HWES). Skin grafts outcomes were assessed according to the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Functional outcome at the recipient site was measured using the Enneking functional outcome score (ESS). Total range of motion (ROM) was recorded. All flaps were successfully elevated with at least one viable perforator with both approaches. The survival rates of suprafascial and subfascial harvested ALT flaps were 96.2 and 97% respectively (P = .85). The mean flap size was 110.4 ± 27.8 cm2 in group 1 and 159.7 ± 44.4 cm2 in group 2. The average flap thickness was 26.2± 5.2 mm in group 1 and 13.9 mm ± 4.1 in group 2. Complications included total flap loss (1 case in group 1 and 1 case in group 2), partial flap loss (2 cases in group 1 and 1 case in group 2), skin graft failure (3 cases in group 1), and muscle herniation at the donor site (1 case in group 1; P < .17). Secondary debulking procedures were needed for 20 flaps in the subfascial group and for one flap in the suprafascial group (P‐value <.01). Donor site closure with skin grafts was necessary in 42 cases: 32 in group 1 and 10 in group 2. The suprafascial harvested ALT flap group reported a significant difference in terms of donor site morbidity. The HWES score of donor site scars was significantly lower in group 1 (mean 1.2 ± 0.54) than in group 2 (mean 2.4 ± 0.58), P < .01. Similarly, the VSS score for skin graft outcomes was lower in patients of group 1 (mean 4.5 ± 0.93) than in patients of group 2 (mean 6.7 ± 0.96), P < .01. There was also a significant lower score of postoperative ESS in patients of group 1 (mean 21.2 ± 3.4) when compared with patients of group 2 (mean 23.6 ± 2.7), P < .01. Total ROM improved on average 60° after surgery (P‐value <.01). The suprafascial plane for elevating ALT flaps presented several advantages over the traditional subfascial approach in terms of functional and aesthetic outcomes, providing a thin flap allowing increased versatility to achieve better contour of flap, and minimizing the need for secondary debulking.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».