Gaining Large Coverage With Small Island Pedicle Flaps in Tight Cosmetic Subunits: Taking Advantage of Rotation and Pincer Principles on the Nasal Ala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Island pedicle flaps (IPFs) are widely used in reconstructive surgery due to their versatility, tissue efficiency, and excellent clinical outcomes. While IPF rotations and 'pincer flap' modifications have previously been sparsely described, they are not often discussed in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate the use of both rotating IPFs and pincer techniques for defects traditionally considered too large for classic IPF design on the nasal ala. METHODS: Forty-four patients underwent alar repair using the rotation or combined rotation with pincer modification to the standard IPF technique from August 2014 to May 2017. Our technique is described and case examples are presented with photographs. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with an average alar defect size of 1.2 cm underwent repair using rotation only or rotation with pincer modification of the classic IPF approach. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of large defects in small facial cosmetic subunits such as the nasal ala can be performed using principles of both rotating IPFs and the 'pincer flap' technique. The degree of rotation is directly related to the length of coverage. Modifications to the flap are straightforward to perform. Using these techniques, larger defects that previously would have been reconstructed using flaps that cross cosmetic boundaries can now be reconstructed within the same cosmetic unit, thus, improving aesthetic outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".