Nasal Septal Perforation Repair Using an Inferior Turbinate Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Nasal septal perforation repair presents a challenging problem to the otolaryngologist. Numerous surgical techniques for the repair of this nasal defect have been described. Although the literature describes great success using the advancement of local mucoperichondrial flaps, it is often difficult to reproduce these results, especially for the closure of larger defects. OBJECTIVE: To describe both the technique and the results of the senior author (P.J.B.), using a pedicled inferior turbinate flap for the closure of a nasal septal perforation in 20 patients. DESIGN: A retrospective case series of 20 consecutive adult patients treated from 2000 to 2005 inclusive. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of the 20 patients treated at the local tertiary care centre over the 5-year period. RESULTS: In 20 consecutive patients who were operated on by the senior author, the minimum perforation size was 1x1 cm and the average area of the perforation was 2.4 cm2. Overall, 80% of the perforations treated in this series were completely closed. CONCLUSION: The pedicled inferior turbinate flap is a valuable technique for the closure of a nasal septal perforation.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".