Comparison of the modified direct closure method and skin grafting for wounds at the anterolateral thigh flap donor site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare the modified direct closure method and traditional skin grafting for wounds at the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap donor site. METHODS: Among 29 consecutive patients with wounds at the ALT flap donor site, 14 underwent the modified direct closure method (MDC group) and 15 underwent traditional skin grafting (SG group). The operative time, follow-up time, complications, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score, and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) score of the two groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean follow-up times in the MDC and SG group were 16.1 and 16.7 months, respectively. Two patients showed partial skin necrosis after skin grafting, but the remaining patients' wounds healed uneventfully. The operative time in the MDC group was an average of about 64 minutes shorter than that in the SG group. The average VSS and SCAR scores in the MDC group were 2.1 and 3.0 points lower, respectively, than those in the SG group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional skin grafting, the modified direct closure method is more efficient for repair of wounds at the ALT flap donor site because of its shorter operative time, better postoperative appearance of the donor site, and higher patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".