Reconstruction of the First Web Space Using the Wide-Second Dorsal Metacarpal Artery Perforator Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the functional and aesthetic outcomes of a wide-second dorsal metacarpal artery perforator flap for reconstruction of the first web space of the hand. This flap sets the proximal edge of the extensor retinaculum as the distal limit.Methods: We measured the preoperative and postoperative angles of the first web space and assessed the quality of the donor site scar in eight patients.Results: The average flap size was 5.5 × 2.8 cm (range, 5.0 × 1.5 cm to 5.0 × 6.0 cm), and all flaps survived completely. The mean postoperative angle was 53°. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score of the donor site was 4 points, and the patients had near-normal thickness and vascularity values. There was no distortion of the scar, and patients were satisfied with the scar appearance of the donor site.Conclusion: The wide-second dorsal metacarpal artery perforator flap is a useful technique to reconstruct large defects of the first web space. It is easy to raise, thin, and pliable, and has excellent color and tissue matching.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".