Reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap with a cutaneous pedicle to cover distal lower limb soft tissue defects: experience of 109 clinical cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Soft tissue defects over the mid- and distal third tibia, heel, dorsum and plantar aspect of the foot and over the medial, lateral and posterior aspect of the ankle are a common scenario in clinical orthopaedic practice. In this article, we describe the utility of the reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap with a cutaneous pedicle in 109 clinical cases with distal lower limb soft tissue defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 109 patients were operated on for moderate (5-15 cm) and large (more than 15 cm) soft tissue defects at various sites along the lower limb including foot, heel and sole with the reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap. The defects were secondary to trauma (61 cases), diabetic ulcers (12 cases), post-traumatic scar contracture (8 cases), venous ulcer (4 cases), wound dehiscence (10 cases), leprotic non-healing ulcer (1 case), post-infective wound (1 case), radiation-induced ulcer following radiotherapy for synovial cell sarcoma (1 case), post-fibromatosis excision (1 case), post-dermatofibrosarcoma excision (1 case), post-heel melanoma excision (1 case) and actinomycosis foot (1 case). Patients were assessed for flap uptake and healing of defects. RESULTS: Among the 102 cases analysed, 81 were male and 21 female with an average age of 32.7 years. The average size of the flaps was 148.10 ± 59.54 cm(2). The flap healed uneventfully in 89.21 % of patients. Edge necrosis occurred in 9 cases. Donor site regrafting was required in 7 patients. CONCLUSION: The reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap with a cutaneous pedicle is a quick, versatile, easy and safe soft tissue defect coverage technique to cover most of the soft tissue defects of the lower limb in common orthopaedic practice and does not require any microvascular repair, though it may be cosmetically unappealing in a few cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Case series).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".