MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300858390 · doi:10.1177/229255031202000210

Revisiting Gavello's procedure for single-stage reconstruction of the earlobe: The vascular basis, technique and clinical uses

2012· article· en· W4300858390 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Debarati Chattopadhyay, Souradip Gupta, Marang Buru Murmu, Goutam Guha, Sandipan Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarlobeMedicineSurgeryStage (stratigraphy)Single stageDeformity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Deformities or loss of the earlobe may be congenital, or acquired due to trauma, bites, burns or tumour excision. A variety of single-stage and two-stage procedures have been described for earlobe reconstruction, of which Gavello's procedure was one of the earliest. Objective To revisit Gavello's procedure with reference to the vascular supply of the flap, and discuss the relevance of the technique in current practice. Methods The authors discuss the vascular basis of Gavello's flap, and describe the clinical application of the single-stage Gavello's procedure in diverse clinical situations, including congenital absence of earlobe, post-burn earlobe deformity and traumatic amputation of the earlobe. Results Excellent cosmetic results have been achieved in all different clinical situations in the authors' experience, with preservation of earlobe shape and volume, good colour match and a well-concealed scar in the donor area. Discussion Gavello's procedure is a simple, one-stage procedure that relies entirely on local tissue for earlobe reconstruction; the flap has a predictable vascular supply, skin grafting is not required and the procedure can be used for large defects. An intact donor area over the postauricular mastoid region is a prerequisite. Conclusion The simple, century-old Gavello's procedure is still of great value for reconstruction of earlobe defects of diverse etiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207