Radial forearm donor site: comparison of the functional and cosmetic outcomes of different reconstructive methods.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine which method of fascial dissection and skin graft reconstruction of radial forearm free flap defects has superior functional and cosmetic outcomes. METHODS: Consenting patients undergoing major head and neck operative resection and reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap were prospectively enrolled and randomized into one of the following four groups: (1) suprafascial dissection with meshed graft reconstruction; (2) suprafascial dissection with sheet graft reconstruction; (3) subfascial dissection with meshed graft reconstruction; and (4) subfascial dissection with sheet graft reconstruction. Functional, cosmetic, and tendon exposure outcomes were collected prospectively with patients and outcome assessors blinded to treatment group assignment. Validated self-report questionnaires and objective functional measures were used. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients met the criteria for inclusion. Analysis revealed that suprafascial dissection with sheet graft reconstruction yielded superior functional, cosmetic, and tendon exposure outcomes. CONCLUSION: Suprafascial dissection with sheet graft reconstruction should be offered to patients requiring radial forearm free flap reconstruction of major head and neck defects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".