Closure of the radial forearm free flap donor site with split-thickness skin graft or amniotic membrane: A prospective randomized clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical, aesthetic, and functional outcomes between amniotic membrane (test group) and split-thickness skin grafts (control group) used for radial forearm free flap defect closure. The primary outcome measurement for both groups was assessment of the defect closure healing process. In addition, aesthetic (Vancouver Scar Scale) and functional outcomes (skin sensitivity, hand/wrist functionality, grip strength) were evaluated. Fifty eligible patients with radial forearm free flap donor site defects were randomly assigned to two groups receiving either amniotic membrane (test group; n = 25) or split-thickness skin graft (control group; n = 25) for defect covering. Forty-seven of the 50 patients (n = 47) were able to be followed up for 6 months and showed a significantly longer healing process (p < 0.001) with amniotic membrane (64.5 ± 38.4 days; n = 24) than with split-thickness skin grafts (29.2 ± 8.9 days; n = 23); however, there were no differences in the prevalence of healing defects/dehiscence and/or wound infections. Forty-two of the 47 patients (21 in each group) were able to be continually followed up for 12 months, and showed no differences in terms of clinical outcome as well as the subjective and objective aesthetic and functional results evaluated. With regard to the clinical, aesthetic, and functional outcomes evaluated for radial forearm free flap defects, coverage with amniotic membrane offers an excellent alternative treatment approach, avoiding secondary induced donor site morbidity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".