Tissue Expansion for Severe Foot and Ankle Deformities: A 16-Year Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tissue expansion in the lower extremity is controversial, with studies reporting complication rates as high as 83%. Few studies have looked at tissue expansion prior to orthopaedic correction of severe foot and ankle deformities, and those available are restricted to clubfoot in the pediatric population. Here, we report the largest case series on the use of tissue expanders for the reconstruction of severe foot and ankle deformity and the only report in adults. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of the senior author's practice over a 16-year study period. All patients over 18 years of age who underwent tissue expansion prior to definitive orthopaedic correction of a severe foot and ankle deformity were included. Patient demographics, etiology of deformity, rate of expansion, and complications were recorded. Major complications were defined as those which required surgical intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen cases were performed on 16 patients. Our overall complication rate was 31.6% (6/19), with major complications occurring in 21.1% (4/19) of cases, and minor complications occurring in 10.5% (2/19) of cases. Despite this, 94.7% (18/19) of cases went on to receive definitive orthopaedic correction after tissue expansion. No demographic parameters were associated with occurrence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the largest report on lower extremity tissue expansion for severe foot and ankle deformity correction. While we observed complications in 31.6% of patients, 94.7% of cases went on to receive definitive orthopaedic correction with successful primary closure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".