Evaluation of a genicular axial pattern flap to repair large cutaneous tibial defects in two dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome after cutaneous reconstruction using genicular artery flaps has not been reported. Major cutaneous defects of the pelvic limb between the stifle and hock are frequent in dogs and closure is difficult due to lack of available skin from immediately adjacent areas. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we report the first two clinical cases successfully managed by genicular axial pattern flap closure. A 2-year-old 38 kg (83.77-lb) intact male Labrador Retriever and a 14-year-old 42 kg (92.59-lb) spayed mixed breed female dog were admitted for the management of large skin defects in the lateral tibiotarsal joint. One defect was the result of a fibrosarcoma removal in the Labrador dog and the other defect was a chronic large wound caused by a car accident in the mixed breed female dog. Both defects were reconstructed by using genicular flaps. The bed of the wound in mixed breed dog was surgically debrided and underwent open wound management until a proper granulation tissue bed was formed before reconstruction. The skin defect in the Labrador dog was covered immediately after tumor removal. After surgery both dogs were bearing weight on the limbs normally. Small area of dehiscence occurred in both dogs 2 weeks after surgery. At follow-up examination one month after surgery, the surgical wound of the Labrador retriever still had a small area of dehiscence. Two months after surgery, the wound of the mixed breed dog was completely healed, covered with hair and no lameness was observed. CONCLUSION: Findings suggested that genicular axial pattern flap is a good option for reconstruction of large cutaneous defects of the lateral aspects of the tibia in dogs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".