The operative treatment of pressure wounds: a 10‐year experience in flap selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to both assist in the selection of flaps for ischial pressure wound re-construction and to evaluate the overall complication rates associated with re-construction. A retrospective medical record review was conducted for 78 patients following the surgical re-construction of an ischial pressure sore. Records were reviewed for demographics, location of sores, methods of re-construction and flap selection, as well as any complications and recurrences. Seventy-two wounds were re-constructed with an average of 1.4 flaps used per wound. An ischial flap complication rate of 16% was observed in flap follow up, with a recurrence rate of 7% recorded. The vast majority of complications went on to heal with 15% of patients requiring a second re-construction. Our relatively large sample of ischial flaps allowed for a close comparison with previously published work. Both flap selection and site of reconstruction significantly affected the success rates for pressure sore coverage. The overall complication rates by flap and re-constructive site in this review are lower than previously published reports. Our experience with ischial re-construction was extensive enough to suggest a posterior medial thigh fasciocutaneous flap combined with a biceps femoris muscle flap as a first choice in ischial pressure wound re-construction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".