Sartorius muscle flap for body wall reconstruction: Surgical technique description and retrospective case series.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to describe the sartorius muscle flap for body wall reconstruction, including description of the anatomy and surgical technique and to report its clinical application for abdominal wall reconstruction in dogs and cats. The descriptive report involves a retrospective case series for 2 dogs and 3 cats. Inclusion criteria were cats or dogs that had a tumor resection resulting in an abdominal wall defect that was reconstructed using an ipsilateral or contralateral sartorius muscle flap. Signalment, pre-operative clinical signs, location and tumor extent, diagnostic imaging and clinical pathology findings, surgical methods, and complications were recorded. Abdominal wall defect reconstructions using the sartorius muscle flap were successfully performed in all 5 patients with good return to function. All complications were minor and were successfully medically managed. This case series demonstrates that the sartorius muscle flap is a feasible option for the closure of large caudal abdominal wall defects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".