Investigation of a modified reverse saphenous conduit flap in the dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This experimental study investigated the feasibility of a modified reverse saphenous conduit flap (RSCF). Modified reverse saphenous conduit flaps were harvested bilaterally in 11 experimental dogs. Each flap was based on preservation of either the cranial or caudal branch of the medial saphenous artery and vein, but not both. In five dogs, flaps were elevated from a medial femoral donor site and subsequently sutured into their normal anatomical positions (orthotopic flap). Four of five orthotopic flaps based on the cranial saphenous vessels and three of five orthotopic flaps based on the caudal saphenous vessels survived in their entirety. Orthotopic flaps demonstrated an “all or none” survival pattern. In the second phase, flaps were elevated bilaterally from a medial femoral donor site and transferred to a metatarsal skin defect using a bridging incision in six dogs (heterotopic flaps). Two of six heterotopic flaps, based on the cranial saphenous vessels and two of six based on the caudal saphenous vessels, survived in their entirety. Three flaps, based on the cranial pedicle and two flaps based on a caudal pedicle, experienced partial survival. One flap based on the cranial pedicle and two flaps based on the caudal pedicle experienced total flop failure. Survival of the modified reverse saphenous conduit flap, as described herein, is inconsistent and, therefore, its use cannot be recommended. Additionally, the results suggest that the reverse saphenous conduit flap should be used with caution in cases where trauma or surgery has embarrassed the integrity of either the cranial or caudal vascular branch.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".