Versatility of the perforator radial artery flap in the reconstruction of the upper limbs and comparison of the outcomes with the “classic” radial flap, a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Radial forearm flap, first described in the early eighties in China, is a well-known and handy flap to cover soft tissue defects of the distal upper limb. It has, though, some inconveniences, such as the sacrifice of the radial artery and non-neglectable esthetic sequelae in the donor site. In the following years, a similar flap based on the perforators of the radial artery has been described as achieving similar results, allowing to spare a main vessel. The authors reviewed retrospectively the patients that underwent surgery with one of those two flaps in their center to compare outcomes. Materials and methods: Patients operated between January 2016 and January 2022 have been reviewed. Ten had a classic radial artery flap, and ten had a radial artery perforator flap. Twelve weeks after surgery, Vancouver Scar Scale was used to assess the results at the donor site and over the flap. Reintervention and failure rate within one year and patient satisfaction -using a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to ten-at 12 months were also assessed. Results: All classic radial artery flap group patients had "successful" surgery, and none needed secondary surgery. On the other side, three patients required a second surgery in the perforator flap group, and nine out of ten ended up with "successful" flaps. Mean Vancouver Scar Scale results regarding the flap are comparable, whereas those at the donor site are significantly better in the patients with the perforator flap. Patients' satisfaction results are similar in both groups. Conclusion: The radial artery perforator flap is an important flap to be held in mind by all surgeons approaching reconstruction of the elbow, the forearm, and the hand, and should be preferred, when possible, to the classic radial forearm flap.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".