The Oblique Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap: Revisited Clinical Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors present their experience with a previously described but infrequently used variation of the rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap. Skin paddles angled obliquely from the line of the rectus abdominis and toward the rib cage were successfully carried on periumbilical perforators from the inferior epigastric system. Skin paddle dimensions ranged from 6.5 to 12 cm in width and from 10 to 27 cm in length in 14 consecutive patients. In six of the 14 patients, the flap was used intraabdominally to obliterate radiated pelvic defects and to close radiated vaginal defects. Five flaps were placed externally to repair radiated wounds of the perineum, thigh, and trunk, and the remaining three cases were performed as free tissue transfers. One cadaver injection study was performed to redemonstrate the preferential flow of fluid in a superior-oblique direction from periumbilical perforators. Termed the oblique rectus abdominis musculocutaneous ("ORAM") flap, this flap variation has significant advantages in terms of ease of dissection and versatility over its flap cousins the vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap and the transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".