Use of a Semitendinosus Myocutaneous Flap for Soft‐Tissue Reconstruction of a Grade IIIB Open Tibial Fracture in a Dog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical use of a semitendinosus myocutaneous flap for soft-tissue reconstruction of a grade IIIB open tibial fracture. STUDY DESIGN: Case report. ANIMALS: A 5-year-old castrated male Labrador retriever with a grade IIIB open tibial fracture. METHODS: A myocutaneous flap was created by elevating the origin of the semitendinosus muscle and the associated overlying skin. The flap was rotated distally based on the distal vascular pedicle into a soft-tissue defect overlying the central and distal third of the tibia. RESULTS: The flap allowed one-stage reconstruction of a severe soft-tissue defect overlying denuded bone in a grade IIIB open tibial fracture. The muscular portion of the flap survived; however, there was necrosis of 3 cm of skin extending distally beyond the muscular portion of the flap. CONCLUSION: Distal rotation of the semitendinosus muscle and overlying skin can be used in the treatment of severe soft-tissue defects of the canine crus. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Complex soft-tissue injuries to the canine crus can be treated with a myocutaneous flap as a reasonable alternative to other reconstructive techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".