Viability and Cosmesis of Right Angle and Vertical Paramedian Forehead Flaps Are Equivalent: A Retrospective Quantitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paramedian forehead flaps (PMFFs) are commonly used for reconstruction of nasal defects. The classic PMFF is vertically oriented while the modified PMFF is designed with a 90-degree angle. No study has compared outcomes between these PMFF designs. OBJECTIVE: To compare and quantify viability and cosmesis of 90-degree and vertical PMFF. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 70 consecutive patients with a vertical or 90-degree PMFF design for nasal repairs after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Cosmetic outcome was assessed on a 10-cm, 100-point, visual analog scale (VAS) by an independent observer using standardized 3-month postoperative photographs. Flap viability was assessed using standardized 3-week postoperative photographs. Descriptive statistics, t -test, and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were repaired with a vertical PMFF and 22 using the 90-degree PMFF. The mean defect area of vertical and 90-degree designs was equivalent (7.7 ± 4.0 cm 2 vs 8.1 ± 4.0 cm 2 , p = .70). There was no significant difference in cosmetic outcome (75.9 ± 9.4 vs 72.9 ± 6.8, p = .19) or flap viability (3.8% ± 11.6 vs 2.6% ± 7.9, p = .67) between vertical and 90-degree designs. CONCLUSION: Vertical and 90-degree PMFF designs for nasal repairs after MMS are equivalent in cosmetic outcome and viability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".