Investigating Patients' Perception of Microvascular Free Toe Flap for Reconstruction of Amputated Thumbs: A Guide for Surgeons during Informed Consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After thumb amputations, restoration of function and aesthetic can be accomplished with microvascular free toe flaps. However, many patients in clinical practice do not choose this reconstruction despite positive reported outcomes. This study aims to determine patients' perceptions with respect to free toe flaps to improve areas of informed consent. METHODS: A retrospective survey was administered to patients with thumb amputations. Participants were required to complete a questionnaire about patient demographics, the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (bMHQ), the standard gamble/time trade-off questionnaires for utility scores, and a questionnaire investigating potential reasons for electing not to undergo a free toe transfer. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in the study wherein 53% underwent a replantation procedure, 27% a revision amputation, and 20% a delayed reconstruction. Mean normalized score on the bMHQ was recorded as 63.54. Utility questionnaires yielded mean measures of 0.8967 and 0.86 on the standard gamble and time trade-off, respectively. From 14 elements, a majority (87%) stated flap failure as a major source of concern, followed by lack of understanding of risks and benefits (80%) and prolonged hospital stay (53%). Cultural/religious beliefs, aesthetic appearance of the foot, and concerns about footwear were not reported as important reasons in 90, 80, and 79% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of patients' attitudes and beliefs with respect to free toe flaps will allow surgeons to better address their concerns during informed consent. This study emphasizes the importance to discuss about failure rates, risks, and benefits of the operation and prolonged hospital stay.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".