Comparison treatment of medium-sized volar fingertips defects with modified triangular neurovascular unilateral advancement flap versus digital artery dorsal perforator flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The reconstruction of medium-sized soft tissue defects of the fingertip remains a challenge for hand surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of modified triangular neurovascular unilateral advancement flap and digital artery dorsal perforator flap in the treatment of this injury. METHODS: From May 2018 to May 2022, 70 patients with medium-sized volar soft tissue defects were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups based on the flap type: modified triangular neurovascular unilateral advancement flap (Group A) and digital artery dorsal perforator flap (Group B). The debridement times, defect size, operation time, and flap survival rate were recorded. At follow-up, hand function, aesthetics, and complications were evaluated. Function was evaluated using the TAM score. The aesthetics of the reconstructed and donor sites were assessed using the vancouver scar scale (VSS). The static two-point discrimination of the finger pulp served as a measure of tactile agnosia. RESULTS: A total of 10 patients were lost to follow-up for various reasons, resulting in 30 cases remaining in each group. The general information of the two groups showed no significant differences in age, sex, injury side, cause of injury, time from injury to surgery, and operation time (P > 0.05). Additionally, the debridement times and size of the defect were similar between the groups (P > 0.05). However, the operation time was significantly shorter in Group A compared to Group B (P = 0.001). With regard to complications, there was no significant difference between them. At one-month follow-up, TAM scores indicated that Group B performed significantly better than Group A. However, at the final follow-up period, there was no significant difference in TAM scores between the two groups. When considering the VSS, significant differences were observed between the two groups in both the reconstructed site and donor site. CONCLUSION: Both flaps can effectively repair medium-sized fingertip defects. Furthermore, the modified triangular neurovascular unilateral advancement flap offers anatomical reconstruction possibilities, ensuring satisfactory sensation and cosmetic contour.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".