MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999142284 · doi:10.2310/7070.2002.10984

Effects of a Noncompressive Hematoma on Free Flap Viability

2002· article· en· W1999142284 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Paul G. van der Sloot, Hadi Seikaly, Jeffrey Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryHematomaAnastomosisFree flapGroin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microvascular free tissue transfer has become an integral component of head and neck reconstructive surgery and historically has a greater than 95% success rate. Hematomas have long been known to cause skin flap necrosis by a variety of mechanisms including direct pressure necrosis, cellular damage secondary to the effects of free radicals, and inflammation. Compression from a hematoma is known to cause free flap compromise. To our knowledge, however, there have been no studies documenting the effect of a noncompressive hematoma surrounding the vascular pedicle on free flap viabiliry. This animal study was designed to assess the effects of a noncompressive hematoma on free flap survival. A right groin cutaneous free flap was created in 32 male Spraque Dawley rats. The rats were then divided into three groups: (1) 10 rats had no fluid added to the anastomotic compartment; (2) 11 rats had 0.5 cc of blood, taken from the femoral artery at the time it was cut, instilled in the anastomotic compartment via the 18-gauge angiocath; and (3) 11 rats had 0.5 cc of pentastarch instilled in the anastomotic compartment via the 18-gauge angiocath. There was 100% free flap survival in all three groups. All vessels examined at the time of sacrifice revealed intact anastomoses and no evidence of luminal clots. This study strongly suggests that in the cutaneous groin free flap model, a perianastomotic noncompressive hematoma has no effect on free flap survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207