Reversed Dorsal Digital and Metacarpal Island Flaps Supplied by the Dorsal Cutaneous Branches of the Palmar Digital Artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dorsal digital and metacarpal island flaps have been described for use in a variety of clinical situations. On the basis of the authors' previous angiographic studies, these two skin flaps were planned on the dorsum of the proximal phalanx or intermetacarpal space based on the vascular anastomoses between the proximal dorsal cutaneous branches of the palmar digital artery and the dorsal digital branches of the dorsal metacarpal artery at the level of the proximal phalanx. The authors present a series of 13 patients using these flaps. To reconstruct the injured finger pulp, the reverse dorsal digital flap was used in 5 patients, and the reverse dorsal metacarpal flap was used in 8 patients. Most of the 13 patients sustained a work-related injury. Associated injuries of bone, joint, or tendon occurred in most patients. In all patients, the skin defect was located distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint. The skin paddle was taken from the dorsal aspect of the middle and ring fingers or the first, second, third, and fourth metacarpal area. All flaps survived completely. Two patients who had the dorsal branch of the sensitive radial nerve anastomosed to the digital nerve recovered 6-mm two-point discrimination in the reverse dorsal digital flap. The results of this anatomic study and the authors' clinical experience confirm the reliability of the dorsal digital and metacarpal island flaps.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".