MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086900566 · doi:10.1177/2513826x20947981

Reverse Sural Flap for Repair of Foot and Ankle Defects: Our Cases, Modifications, and a Literature Review

2020· review· en· W3086900566 on OpenAlex
Recep Anlatıcı

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery Case Studies · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleSurgeryFoot (prosody)Dissection (medical)Sural nerve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Reverse-flow sural flap is a valuable option in cases of lower extremity repair. In this study, we aimed to present our sural flap applications and modifications for the treatment of ankle and foot defects and to evaluate our results in the light of historical process and current literature. Materials and Methods: A reverse-flow fasciocutaneous flap was performed in 14 patients to repair foot and ankle defects. In 6 cases (42.86%), we chose to perform interpolation sural flaps where we aimed to repair the distal defects of the foot and/or in order to prevent patients from having trouble wearing shoes due to bulkiness of the flap pedicle at the ankle. In other cases (tunnel flap group, 57.14%), the pedicle of the flap was passed through the subcutaneous tunnel. Wide and meticulous dissection of the tunnel, nitroglycerine application on the flap, and close flap monitoring were our protective measures. Our results were analyzed statistically. The literature review was performed from Medline and PubMed. Results: Sural flap repair was performed in 14 patients. The mean age was 32.75 years. Etiologic factors were traffic accidents, spinal cord injuries, and hyperkeratotic lesions. The defects were localized in the ankle or proximal foot in 12 (85.71%) patients and the distal foot in the remaining patients (14.29%). The mean area of the defects was 46.75 cm 2 . Partial necrosis at the distal flap developed in 2 (25%) cases in the tunnel group and in 1 (16.67%) in the interpolation group (3 cases in total, 21.43% in the study population). No statistical difference was found between the flap groups in terms of patient distribution and complications. Conclusion: Wide dissection of the subcutaneous tunnel through which the pedicle is passed (in the tunnel group), application of nitroglycerin, meticulous hemostasis, and postoperative follow-ups are important factors for a successful reverse sural flap application. Sural interpolation modification is advantageous in several cases as the flap can reach farther and does not cause bulkiness in the ankle that would impair shoe wear. However, the disadvantage is that it requires 2 sessions.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.278 · 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