Acute deep hand burns covered by a pocket flap-graft: long-term outcome based on nine cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the long-term outcome of the "pocket flap-graft" technique, used to cover acute deep burns of the dorsum of the hand, and analyzed surgical alternatives. METHODS: This was a 6-year, retrospective study of 8 patients with extensive burns and 1 patient with a single burn (11 hands in all) treated by defatted abdominal wall pockets. We studied the medical records of the patients, and conducted a follow-up examination. RESULTS: All hands had fourth-degree thermal burns caused by flames, with exposure of tendons, bones, and joints, and poor functional prognosis. One third of patients had multiple injuries. Burns affected an average of 36% of the hand surface, and mean coverage was 92.8 cm(2). One patient died. The 8 others were seen at 30-month follow-up: the skin quality of the flap was found to be good in 55% of the cases, the score on the Vancouver Scar Scale was 2.4, the Kapandji score was 4.5, and total active motion was 37% of that of a normal hand. Hand function was limited in only 2 cases, 8 patients were able to drive, and 3 patients had gone back to work. CONCLUSION: The pocket flap-graft allows preservation of hand function following severe burns, when local or free flaps are impossible to perform. Debulking of the flap at the time of elevation limits the need for secondary procedures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".