A Clinical Experience with Perforator Flaps in the Coverage of Extensive Defects of the Upper Extremity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional skin free flaps, such as radial arm, lateral arm, and scapular flaps, are rarely sufficient to cover large skin defects of the upper extremity because of the limitation of primary closure at the donor site. Muscle or musculocutaneous flaps have been used more for these defects. However, they preclude a sacrifice of a large amount of muscle tissue with the subsequent donor-site morbidity. Perforator or combined flaps are better alternatives to cover large defects. The use of a muscle as part of a combined flap is limited to very specific indications, and the amount of muscle required is restricted to the minimum to decrease the donor-site morbidity. The authors present a series of 12 patients with extensive defects of the upper extremity who were treated between December of 1999 and March of 2002. The mean defect was 21 x 11 cm in size. Perforator flaps (five thoracodorsal artery perforator flaps and four deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps) were used in seven patients. Combined flaps, which were a combination of two different types of tissue based on a single pedicle, were needed in five patients (scapular skin flap with a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap in one patient and a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap with a split latissimus dorsi muscle in four patients). In one case, immediate surgical defatting of a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap on a wrist was performed to immediately achieve thin coverage. The average operative time was 5 hours 20 minutes (range, 3 to 7 hours). All but one flap, in which the cutaneous part of a combined flap necrosed because of a postoperative hematoma, survived completely. Adequate coverage and complete wound healing were obtained in all cases. Perforator flaps can be used successfully to cover a large defect in an extremity with minimal donor-site morbidity. Combined flaps provide a large amount of tissue, a wide range of mobility, and easy shaping, modeling, and defatting.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".