Motor and sensory morbidity associated with the anterolateral thigh perforator free flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify changes in motor function, sensation, and lower extremity quality of life following anterior lateral thigh free flap (ALT) resection. METHODS: This mixed methods study contained both a prospective cohort arm (n = 20) and retrospective cross-sectional arm (n = 20). In both arms, patients underwent formal motor and sensation testing of the ipsilateral and contralateral thigh by sphygmomanometry and monofilament testing. In the prospective arm, data was collected preoperatively and at the 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits. In the retrospective arm, consecutive patients with a minimum of 6-month postoperative follow-up were enrolled. RESULTS: Postoperatively, 82% of participants endorsed some degree of numbness and tingling at the donor site. On monofilament testing, patients from the prospective arm showed decreased sensibility of the midthigh at both the 6- and 12-month assessment (P < 0.01). Two-point discrimination scores were moderately correlated with the cross-sectional surface area of the flap. Donor thighs demonstrated a similar peak isometric quadriceps contraction (retrospective [retro]: 47 ± 24 mmHg, prospective [pro]: 90 ± 36 mmHg) to the unoperated thighs (retro: 43 mmHg ± 22, pro: 69 ± 35.3 mmHg, P = 0.49). When stratified by perforator anatomy, no significant differences were noted. Subjective donor site morbidity measured with the lower extremity function scale demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and 12-month postoperative assessment. CONCLUSION: The ALT flap offers minimal donor site morbidity. Reduced sensibility of the ALT flap is a common complaint among patients. Quadriceps strength is not significantly affected by an ALT free flap harvest. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:1057-1061, 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".