Use of amniotic membrane for radial forearm free flap donor site coverage: clinical, functional and cosmetic outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical, functional and aesthetic outcomes for radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor sites covered with amniotic membrane (AM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The healing process of patients with RFFF donor sites covered with AM was prospectively followed for 1 year. Additionally at the 12-month evaluation, objective scoring systems were used to assess the aesthetic (Vancouver scar scale, VSS: range 1-13) and functional outcome (skin sensibility, hand/wrist functionality [goniometer], grip strength [score 1 = excellent, 5 = poor]). By using a subjective rating system (score 1 = excellent, 5 = poor), the patient-reported aesthetic and functionality outcome was correlated with objective data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of 23 patients were followed for 12 months (dropout: 2 patients at 3 months). In 17/23 (73.9%) patients RFFF defect covered with AM showed an uneventful healing period (< 3 months). Prolonged healing periods (> 3 months < 6) for 6 patients (26.1%) were attributed to wound infections (4×), seroma (1×) and inflammation (1×). At the 1-year evaluation, there was a significant (p < 0.01) correlation between subjective (2.0 ± 0.71) and objective aesthetic scores (VVS 3.74 ± 2.18), and a successful grip strength (score 1.67 ± 0.86); however, thumb hyposensibility in 76.2% was seen. A high body mass index (BMI) was in conjunction with a negative (p = 0.012) and the use of antihypertensive medications provided positive effects (p = 0.041) on the aesthetic outcome. CONCLUSION: RFFF donor site defects covered using AM show excellent clinical, aesthetic and functional outcome representing patient comorbidities (BMI, antihypertensive drugs) might affect the aesthetic outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In relation to the excellent outcomes found, the use of AM offers an alternative treatment procedure for RFFF defect covering.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".