Rhombic Flap: A Useful Flap for Small-to-Medium Defects of the Medial Canthus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medial canthal defects are frequently encountered yet present specific challenges for the reconstructive surgeon. Surgical repair in this area may inadvertently lead to canthal webbing, ectropion, and/or epiphora. The rhombic flap is a versatile workhorse in the reconstructive armamentarium for canthal defects. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of the inferiorly based rhombic flap for reconstructing defects on the medial canthus. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Mohs micrographic surgery cases was performed. All cases in which an inferiorly based rhombic flap was used for canthal reconstruction between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Defect size, location, and any postoperative complications were noted. Surgical scars were scored using the Vancouver Scar Scale. RESULTS: There were 34 cases (17 men and 17 women). Age ranged from 38 to 86 (mean 69). Defect size varied from 0.6 to 2.1 cm in diameter. Postoperative complications were uncommon and minor. CONCLUSION: The rhombic flap is a versatile and useful option for reconstructing surgical defects of the medial canthus.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".