The Keystone Flap—A Case Series Demonstrating Practical Design, Use, and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The keystone design perforator island flap is a trapezoidal-shaped random perforator island flap with many advantages over primary closure, skin grafting, and other local flaps for soft tissue reconstruction commonly encountered with cancer excisions. METHODS: This case series of 39 keystone flaps in 37 patients reviews the practical design, use, and applications of the flap while highlighting certain important considerations. Keystone flaps were designed as in the original description, with a minor modification in the lower extremity where a higher flap to defect width ratio was used. RESULTS: were reconstructed in 23 males and 14 females ranging in age from 49 to 89. In all 39 cases, there were 2 minor complications of partial flap dehiscence and no major complications such as partial or complete flap loss. CONCLUSION: The keystone flap is a versatile and reliable flap with applications almost anywhere on the body. A higher ratio of flap width to defect width up to 1:3 is more appropriate for the lower extremity where tension is higher.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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".