Use of vacuum-assisted closure to maintain viability of a skin flap in a dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE DESCRIPTION: A 4-year-old sexually intact male Labrador Retriever-Poodle mix was admitted to the hospital for treatment of a wound in the left thoracic region. The wound had been debrided and primary closure had been performed by the referring veterinarian 4 days previously. CLINICAL FINDINGS: The dog had a 20-cm-long wound covered by a large flap of skin that extended caudally from the scapula over the left side of the thorax. A 3-cm defect was evident at the cranioventral aspect of the wound, from which purulent material was being discharged. The skin flap was necrotic, and the skin surrounding the flap was bruised. Signs of pain were elicited when the wound and surrounding region were palpated. Other findings, including those of thoracic radiography, were unremarkable. TREATMENT AND OUTCOME: The wound was debrided, and vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) was initiated for 3 days until a healthy bed of granulation tissue developed. A reconstructive procedure was performed with a rotation flap 3 days after VAC dressing removal. The VAC process was reinitiated 2 days following reconstruction because of an apparent failing of the skin flap viability. After 5 days of VAC, the flap had markedly improved in color and consistency and VAC was discontinued. Successful healing of the flap occurred without the need for debridement or additional intervention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Use of VAC led to a good overall outcome for the dog, with complete healing achieved. Additional evaluation of this technique for salvaging failing skin flaps is warranted in dogs, particularly considering that no reliable method for flap salvage in veterinary species has been reported to date.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".