Versatility of the Proximally Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap and Its Use in Complex Abdominal and Pelvic Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterolateral thigh flap was described by Song et al. in 1984. Although more usually used as a free flap, it also has remarkable versatility as a pedicled flap. There are, however, no well-established guidelines that exist to define the extent of defects that can be reconstructed using this flap. In this article, the authors evaluate their experience with consecutive cases of the pedicled anterolateral thigh flap in complex abdominal and pelvic reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records and photographic archives was performed looking at 28 proximally pedicled anterolateral thigh flaps in 27 patients. RESULTS: The authors identified the arcs of rotation achieved, the types of defects reconstructed, points of surgical technique that enhanced their results, and some pitfalls of this flap. Useful points of surgical technique identified included suprafascial flap harvesting, extended harvesting of fascia, utilization of fascia to protect the pedicle, harvesting as a composite flap with the vastus lateralis, prudent preservation of large perforators that transgress the lateral aspect of the rectus femoris, synergistic use with a sartorius "switch," complete flap deepithelialization to fill dead space, and simple conversion to a free flap when pedicle length is inadequate. Pitfalls identified included the increased risk of pedicle avulsion in the morbidly obese, the risk of atherosclerotic plaque embolization in an atheromatous pedicle, and the potential inadequacy of thigh fascia for reconstituting abdominal wall integrity. CONCLUSIONS: This versatile flap has a wide arc of rotation. Multiple surgical modifications can be employed to tailor the flap to individual patient needs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".