MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081439354 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002520

Superficial Peroneal Neurocutaneous Flap for Coverage of Donor Site Defect After the Combined Transfer of Toe and Dorsal Foot Flap

2020· article· en· W3081439354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chunyang Wang, Weichao Yang, Feng Zhang, William C. Lineaweaver, Gen Wen, Yimin Chai

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFoot (prosody)DorsumSurgerySuperficial peroneal nerveSoft tissueAnatomyAnkle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of digital loss with soft tissue defects remains a tough challenge. Although a combined flap of toe and dorsal foot skin provides a good option for "like-for-like" hand reconstruction, the disappointed donor site morbidity prevents it from popularity. In this study, we presented experiences of the superficial peroneal neurocutaneous (SPNC) flap for donor site closure after the combined toe and dorsal foot flap transfer. METHODS: Superficial peroneal neurocutaneous flaps were used to cover foot donor site defects in 9 patients. The flaps harvested from feet including 3 cases of wrap-around flap with dorsal foot flap, 4 cases of 2nd toe flap with dorsal foot flap, 2 cases of 2nd and 3rd toe flap with dorsal foot flap. The flap size, operation time, and complications were documented, and the donor sites were evaluated by the subjective outcome measure, the foot evaluation questionnaire, and the Vancouver Scar Scale. RESULTS: All flaps but one survived completely without complications. Marginal necrosis occurred in the distal part of the flap in one case, which was treated by daily dressings. The skin grafts on the lower leg healed uneventfully. The average operation time of flap transfer was 40 minutes. Follow-up ranged from 9 to 16 months, and patients were content with the results of the foot donor site according to the outcome measures. All the patients were able to wear normal shoes walking and running with a normal gait, and none sustained complications of skin erosion or ulceration. Protective sensibility was obtained in all the flaps. Two patients complained of cold intolerance and 2 could not wear a thong sandal. The donor site scars on the lower leg were measured 3.2 on average on the Vancouver Scar Scale. CONCLUSIONS: The SPNC flap is a practical procedure for donor site closure on the foot, especially when extra dorsal foot skin is elevated with a toe flap for hand reconstruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207