Evaluation of Donor-Site Morbidity after Radial Forearm Flap Elevation for Total Phallic Reconstruction in Transgender Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes of donor site reconstruction in a consecutive series of transgender men underwent radial artery free-flap phalloplasty (RAP). A retrospective data analysis of patients underwent a RAP from 2016 to 2021 in a national referral center was conducted. The following were set as outcome measures: pre-operative risk factors, size of the donor-site defect, the duration of the procedure, the hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications (<90 days). Postoperative complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo scale. Vancouver scar scale, POSAS scale, Scar Pinch Test and aROM were used to evaluate the functional outcomes: Patient satisfaction rates were inquired using a 3 items ad-hoc created questionnaire. A sub-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of two different techniques: ... 24 patients were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 30.2 (16.2) months. Mean age was 34.4 (14.5). Median donor site defect was 333 cc (IQR 306-323). No intraoperative complications were detected. A postoperative complication was described in 33.3% of cases: Grade 1 (20.8%), Grade 2 (8.3%) and Grade 3a (4.2%) according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Mean graft take was 88.7%. A complete graft take was detected in 41.7% of the patients with a statistically significant advantage for group B (83.3%) when compared to group A (27.8%) (p= 0.002). Functional outcomes resulted satisfactory in both groups. Overall satisfaction for arm appearance and functioning were respectively 70.8% and 87.5%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".