Reduction of donor site morbidity in the radial forearm free flap by use of topical tissue expanders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to significantly reduce the donor site morbidity associated with use of the radial forearm free flap (RFFF). DESIGN: A pilot study to test the feasibility of topical tissue expanders to close the RFFF donor site. SETTING: The setting was a tertiary care teaching hospital. METHODS: This pilot study consisted of a series of 21 cases that used topical tissue expanders to preoperatively expand the forearm skin. This allowed primary closure of the donor site and, in some cases, closure with a full-thickness skin graft. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was the ability to close the RFFF donor site without the use of a partial-thickness skin graft from the lateral thigh. Secondary outcome measures were the postoperative appearance of the donor site wound and function of the forearm. RESULTS: Twenty-one cases were treated with the preoperative tissue expanders. It was possible to close the donor site without a partial-thickness skin graft from the thigh in 17 of these patients (81%). None of these patients experienced prolonged functional disability or serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of preoperative topical tissue expanders has the potential to significantly improve donor site morbidity in the RFFF.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".