The Posterior Thigh Perforator Flap or Profunda Femoris Artery Perforator Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The thigh donor site has been used extensively for microsurgical tissue transfer; however, the posterior thigh has been neglected as a potential donor site. The perforators of the profunda femoris artery supply large cutaneous territories that could be useful for lower extremity coverage. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the anatomical basis of the posterior thigh perforator flap and to provide anatomical landmarks with which to facilitate flap dissection. METHODS: Six fresh cadavers underwent a whole-body, intraarterial injection of a lead oxide and gelatin preparation. The integument of the posterior thigh was dissected (n = 11), and perforators of the profunda femoris artery were identified. Their type (septocutaneous versus musculocutaneous), course, size, and location were documented by angiography and photography. Surface areas were measured with Scion Image Beta 4.02. Results are reported as mean +/- SD. RESULTS: The average number of profunda femoris cutaneous perforators in the posterior thigh was 5 +/- 2 (65 percent septocutaneous and 35 percent musculocutaneous), the average internal diameter was 0.8 +/- 0.3 mm, and the pedicle length was 29 +/- 14 mm from the deep fascia and 68 +/- 33 mm from the profunda femoris artery. The average profunda femoris cutaneous vascular territory was 229 +/- 72 cm, with a 46 +/- 13-cm perforator zone. Cutaneous perforators can be found on a line extending from the ischium to the lateral femoral condyle. CONCLUSIONS: The profunda femoris provides cutaneous perforators of large caliber supporting a substantial cutaneous territory. This flap will likely be clinically useful in lower extremity reconstruction as a free or pedicled 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".