A Retrospective Matched-Pair Analysis of Long-term Outcomes after Successful Lower Extremity Free Flap Salvage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pedicle occlusion with total free flap loss after microvascular lower extremity reconstruction is a considerably rare yet devastating complication. Fortunately, in the majority of cases, emergency salvage takebacks of compromised free flaps are initiated in a timely manner. In this report, we present our analysis of long-term outcomes following transient vascular compromise mitigated through successful free flap salvage in the lower extremity. Methods We performed a single-center retrospective matched-pair analysis of 46 patients with lower extremity free flap reconstructions. Cases underwent successful revisions of microvascular compromise (n = 23), whereas controls had uneventful postoperative courses (n = 23). Patient-reported outcome questionnaires and physical evaluations were used to assess general quality of life, functional outcomes, and cosmesis (Lower Extremity Functional Scale [LEFS], Lower Limb Outcomes Questionnaire [LLOQ], Short Form 36 (SF-36), Vancouver Scar Scale [VSS]). The mean follow-up time was 4.4 years. Results The health-related quality of life assessed by the SF-36 did not differ significantly between both groups in any of the subscales (p ≥ 0.15 for all subscales). Functional outcomes did not show significant differences between both groups according to the LEFS (p = 0.78) and LLOQ (p = 0.45). The overall scar appearance assessed by the VSS showed significantly poorer cosmesis in the re-exploration group (p = 0.014). Conclusion Salvage of compromised free flaps in the lower extremity yields similar long-term outcomes compared to noncompromised free flaps with regard to function and quality of life. However, free flap revisions may lead to impaired scar formation. This study provides further evidence that the opportunity for urgent re-exploration is indispensable.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".