Foot and ankle reconstruction using the lateral supramalleolar flap versus the anterolateral thigh flap in the elderly: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the reconstructive outcomes of soft-tissue defects around the foot and ankle with anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap or lateral supramalleolar (LSM) flap and attempt to provide an optimal strategy for elderly patients. A retrospective review of all continuous patients with foot and ankle reconstruction using different flaps from October of 2010 and October of 2020 was performed. Based on the flap types, the patients were divided into two groups: ALT flap group (n = 50) and LSM flap group (n = 46). Outcomes were assessed according to the flap survival rate, early complications, general complications, late complications, cosmetic appearance, functional outcomes and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). We found that there was no difference in average age, gender, aetiology, size of the defect, debridement times between the two groups; however, a significant difference in operation time, hospitalisation time and cost were noted between them. What's more, the early flap complications between them were not significantly different. The LSM flap group showed less general complications, less flap bulky and lower cosmetic appearance. Moreover, the functional evaluation and VSS seem similar (P > .05). Thus, The ALT flap and LSM flap are both flaps available for foot and ankle reconstruction in elderly patients. However, the LSM flap offers short operation time, short hospitalisation time, and less cost with a lower frequency of postoperative complications. Thus, we advocate the LSM flap for the reconstruction of moderate-size defects of the foot and ankle region in elderly patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".