Anastomosis to the common and proper digital vessels in free flap soft tissue reconstruction of the hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to demonstrate the safety of anastomosing free flaps to the common or proper digital artery, and to the volar or dorsal digital vein in soft tissue reconstruction of the hand; as well, as to discuss the advantages of this technique. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients who underwent free flap reconstruction of the hand in two institutions over a period of 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 29 free flaps (9 great toe pulp, 7 anterolateral thigh, 6 second toe pulp, 4 radial artery perforator, 2 partial medial rectus, 1 lateral arm) in 28 patients met our inclusion criteria. All recipient vessels were the proper or common digital artery and the volar or dorsal digital vein. There was one case of venous congestion that resolved with leeching. There was no partial or total loss of any of the flaps. CONCLUSION: Anastomosing soft tissue free flaps to the common or proper digital artery, and the volar or dorsal digital vein is a safe and effective approach with numerous advantages that should be considered in the reconstruction of soft tissue defects of the hand. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 38:21-25, 2018.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".