Three-Dimensional Analysis of Perforators of the Posterior Leg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional evaluations of cutaneous perforator vessels provide useful clinical information to aid in the design of perforator flaps. By combining three-dimensional digital imaging and angiography, the authors developed a new three-dimensional visualization technique for vascular perforators. Their purpose was to produce a digitized model of the posterior leg to determine the anatomical relationships of perforators in each zone of the posterior leg. METHODS: Eight cadavers were injected with a modified lead oxide-gelatin mixture. Two cadavers were selected for three-dimensional reconstruction using a spiral computed tomography scanner and specialized volume-rendering software. Dissection, angiography, and photography of each layer were performed to outline the course of every perforator in the posterior leg. The area of the vascular territory supplied by each source vessel was calculated. Surface areas were measured using Scion Image software. RESULTS: The arterial supply to the integument of the posterior leg was divided into proximal, middle, and distal zones. There were 13 +/- 2.3 perforators with diameters of greater than or equal to 0.5 mm; the average external diameter was 0.8 +/- 0.2 mm. Each perforator supplied an average area of 38 +/- 9.0 cm. Perforators from the popliteal artery were large and consistent and supplied an average area of 55 +/- 20 cm; there were multiple anastomoses between perforators from the popliteal, posterior tibial, and peroneal arteries. The distal zone received its arterial supply from two to three smaller septocutaneous perforators, which are arranged longitudinally in one to two parallel chains. CONCLUSIONS: The posterior leg is an excellent donor site for local and distant flaps. Perforator flaps could be based in a variety of ways from each zone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".