Negative pressure wound therapy for the management of flaps with venous congestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to evaluate the utility of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for rescuing flaps with venous congestion not attributable to a mechanical etiology and that cannot be surgically salvaged. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 12 patients suffered from partial or total flap congestion after pedicle or free-flap reconstruction was included. All patients underwent NPWT between 3 and 10 days postoperatively. RESULTS: All congested flaps survived after the application of NPWT. Nine patients suffered partial flap loss and this was addressed through debridement of the devitalized tissue and primary closure. Three patients required blood transfusions during the course of their management. All patients presented complete coverage of the defects without further problems in the flaps after the treatment. CONCLUSION: NPWT may be considered an alternative management strategy for flaps, which has undergone venous congestion not due to a mechanical cause. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 36:467-473, 2016.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".