Comparison of Dorsoulnar Artery Perforator, Superficial Palmar Branch of the Radial Artery, and Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flaps in Volar Finger Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Volar finger defects can sometimes be challenging for plastic surgeons. There are many reconstruction options from local flaps to free flaps. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present a functional and cosmetic comparison of the results of using dorsoulnar artery perforator (DUAP), superficial palmar branch of the radial artery (SPBRA), and superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flaps for repairing volar finger defects. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were included in the study. The age and sex of the patients, cause of injury, defect location, defect size, and presence or absence of nerve damage were noted. The patients' defects were reconstructed with DUAP, SCIP, or SPBRA flaps. The flap size, flap elevation time, vessels, and early postoperative complications were noted. During the postoperative follow-up period, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scale was used to evaluate hand function, and the modified Vancouver Scar Scale was used to assess aesthetic appearance. Two-point discrimination tests and cold intolerance tests were performed to measure sensory outcomes. Donor site improvements were also noted. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, defect size, flap size, follow-up time, and 2-point discrimination. It was observed that the elevation time was significantly shorter in the SCIP flap group, and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score was significantly lower in the DUAP flap group compared with the other 2 groups (P < 0.01). In addition, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale score was significantly higher in the DUAP flap group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study show that the use of SPBRA flaps has more advantages than the use of DUAP and SCIP flaps in many respects.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".