Keystone Design Perforator Island Flap for Closure of the Anterolateral Thigh Flap Donor Site: a Case Series and Our Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: With the development of microsurgical techniques, the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap has been widely used in reconstruction of various soft-tissue defects. However, there were few studies focusing on the closure of the ALT flap donor site, especially when the width of the harvested ALT flap was more than 6 cm. The purpose of this study was to share our experience of using Keystone Design Perforator Island Flap (KDPIF) to repair the ALT flap donor site where can’t be closed without a skin graft.Method: A retrospective study was used to analyze 12 patients who underwent the reconstruction of the ALT flap donor site using KDPIF from February 2018 to December 2020. Demographics, flap characteristics, surgical technique, postoperative complications, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score, and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) score were statistically analyzed.Results: 12 patients (10 males, 2 females) with the mean age 47.5 years (range, 27-66 years) were included in this study. All ALT flap donor sites were closed by the KDPIF. The mean size of the harvested ALT flap (the donor site size) was 8.1 cm × 14.4 cm (range from 8.0 cm × 11.0 cm to 9.0 cm × 21.0 cm), and the mean size of keystone flap was 9.1 cm × 16.4 cm (range from 8.0 cm × 13.0 cm to 12.0 cm × 19.0 cm). At the mean follow-up of 8.3 months (range, 6-12 months), two patients suffered from the skin infection around the flap, which was controlled under the treatment of wound dressing change and oral antibiotics. Wound dehiscence, osteofascial compartment syndrome (OCS), venous return disorder, and skin necrosis were not presented in any patients. All patients were evaluated at the final follow-up with ASS core (mean, 6.7; range, 5-8) and SCAR core (mean, 7.3; range, 6-9).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the KDPIF that can be used to close the ALT flap donor site primarily is an effective and alternative treatment for patients with a the width of the donor site more than 6 cm including the advantages of high survival rate, low morbidity, good aesthetics, and simple operation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".