Split-thickness Plantar Skin Graft for Foot Syndactyly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the treatment of syndactyly, the submalleolar or inguinal area is the common donor site for skin grafts. However, high skin tension of the submalleolar area could potentially delay wound healing or cause scarring. Skin grafts from the inguinal area cause pigmentation. In this study, we have harvested split-thickness skin grafts from the plantar area to treat syndactyly and evaluated the healing course and aesthetic outcome. We analyzed 13 recipient and nine donor sites in eight patients, aged 13-68 months (average 25 months), with syndactyly of the foot. The minimum follow-up was 14 months, and average follow-up period was 22.3 months. Aesthetic outcomes including color and texture match, wound healing of donor site using Vancouver Scar Scale, and complications of both sites were assessed in all patients. At the recipient sites, the graft survived well, and the lack of pigmentation of the graft led to good color match. At the donor sites, hypertrophic scar and high scar scale were seen around postoperative month 3, but were momentary, as all donor sites matured to a flat and soft scar. Morbidity of split-thickness skin graft from the plantar region is limited. It causes minimum scarring of the nonexposed area. Moreover, because it does not cause pigmentation, the split-thickness skin graft technique is a reasonable option for the treatment of syndactyly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".