Sickle-shaped transposition flap oriented along relaxed skin tension lines for lower eyelid reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe reconstruction of defects in the lower eyelid region is prone to complications such as ectropion and epiphora.This area is also aesthetically important; therefore, operations should be carried out with caution.We introduce a simple and easy surgical approach for the repair of small to moderate-sized lower eyelid defects.Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who underwent lower eyelid defect reconstruction using a sickle-shaped transposition flap in 2018 or 2019.Photographs were taken at each visit, and the Vancouver Scar Scale was used to evaluate residual marks every 3 months for 1 year.Patients reported their subjective satisfaction levels on a visual analogue scale that ranged from 0 to 10. Results A total of nine patients were included.No flap necrosis, ectropion, epiphora, or other complications were observed.Among the eight patients with skin cancer, no recurrence was noted during the follow-up period.The mean Vancouver Scar Scale scores were 5.50±0.99 at 3 months postoperatively, 4.61±0.85at 6 months postoperatively, 3.05±0.80at 9 months postoperatively, and 1.11±0.58at 12 months postoperatively.The mean overall patient satisfaction rating was 9.11±0.78(as rated on the visual analogue scale). ConclusionsIn the reconstruction of lower eyelid defects, the sickle-shaped transposition flap could be a simple, fast, and aesthetically favorable surgical option.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".