A Suture Tips Applied to Rotating Flaps in Reconstructing Facial Defects to Optimize Scarring: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Local flap reconstruction is the most common method to repair facial defects. In this study, authors have explored and introduced a modified suture technique with rotation flap to repair facial defects that makes scarring more discreet and easier to perform. Methods: Patients with facial defects who underwent surgical treatment of the rotation flaps reconstructions and were admitted to our department between October 2014 and October 2019 were included in this retrospective study. The rotating flap is designed along the Relaxed Skin Tension Line (RSTLs) and contour lines, parts of patients received modified suture depending on the shape and size of the defect. Observe the flaps’ survival and complications. Assessments of the scars with Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) regularly and follow-ups. Results: This five-year retrospective study evaluated a total of 56 patients; of these, 45 patients underwent modified suture surgery, the average defects were 19.7±4.5×25.5±5.2mm, and the average duration of follow-up was 13.8±5.0 months. Scar appearance was evaluated using the VSS score, range from 0-5, with an average of 1.6±1.1, and mainly reflected in pigmentation and vascularity. Postsurgical scar concealment is made afterward, and all flaps survive. No hemodynamic disorder or necrosis was found. Conclusion: The rotation flap was designed based on RSTLs/ contour lines to repair the facial defect and make the scarring well concealed. The modified suture method makes the flap line consistent with the RSTLs/ contour line of the facial skin to the maximum extent and leads to better facial aesthetics results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".