A New Technique of ???Double-A??? Bilateral Flaps Based on Perforators for the Treatment of Sacral Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocutaneous and fasciocutaneous flaps can provide stable coverage of sacral defects. For neurologically intact patients, sensate innervated gluteal artery perforator flaps are the ideal solution. For patients with spinal cord injury, soft-tissue coverage can be performed with a variety of noninnervated flaps. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2004, the authors operated on 30 patients, 21 men and nine women, using bilateral gluteal distal fasciocutaneous and proximal musculocutaneous vertical vector rotation-advancement flaps, based on perforators with V-Y closures. The ages of the patients ranged from 32 to 74 years. Twenty-five patients had spinal cord injuries and all had sacral pressure sores extending to the bone. Three patients had low-grade malignant tumors (sacral chordomas); one had a sacral radiation-induced necrosis and two senile patients with large sacral defects had chronic renal failure and multiple sclerosis. No comorbidities were found in the sample. RESULTS: All the lesions were closed successfully. After follow-up of 1 to 8 years, 27 patients never required repeated surgery after wound complications. Three patients had infection and partial dehiscence of the flaps that healed after reoperation with V-Y readvancement; three died as a result of their primary diseases. CONCLUSIONS: This flap design has been used only in selected cases because, after its elevation, use of other gluteal-based flaps for future sacral reconstructions may not be possible. Five neurologically intact patients were found to have good sensitive protection of the flaps and adequate cushion contour after surgery because the authors conserved the gluteal arteries, perforators, and their corresponding sensory nerves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".