The Superior and Inferior Gluteal Artery Perforator Flaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perforator flaps have allowed reconstruction of soft-tissue defects throughout the body. The superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps have been used clinically, yet the published anatomical studies describing the blood supply to the gluteal skin are inadequate. This study comprehensively evaluated the anatomical basis of these flaps to present anatomical landmarks to facilitate flap dissection. METHODS: In six fresh cadavers, the integument of the gluteal region was dissected. Cutaneous perforators of the superior and inferior gluteal arteries were identified. Their course, size, location, and type (septocutaneous versus musculocutaneous) were recorded based on dissection, angiography, and photography. The surface areas of cutaneous territories and perforator zones were measured and calculated. RESULTS: The average number of superior and inferior cutaneous perforators greater than or equal to 0.5 mm in the gluteal region was 5 +/- 2 and 8 +/- 4, respectively, with all of the superior and 99 percent of the inferior gluteal artery perforators being musculocutaneous. Their average perforator internal diameter was 0.6 +/- 0.1 mm. The average superior and inferior gluteal artery cutaneous vascular territory was 69 +/- 56 cm and 177 +/- 38 cm, respectively. The superior gluteal perforators were found adjacent to the medial two-thirds of a line drawn from the posterior superior iliac spine to the greater trochanter. The inferior gluteal artery perforators were concentrated along a line in the middle third of the gluteal region above the gluteal crease. CONCLUSION: The reliable size and consistency of the superior and inferior gluteal artery perforators allow the use of pedicled and free superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps in a variety of clinical situations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".