Outcomes of Radial Forearm Free Flap Closure With Split‐Thickness Skin Graft Versus Primary Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compares patient-reported functional and aesthetic outcomes of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) versus hatchet flap closure of radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor site. METHODS: Patients with RFFF (2015-2020) were retrospectively identified. Those willing to participate in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) filled out Patient-Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHOQ). RESULTS: 198 patients met our inclusion criteria and 81 participated in PRO. There was a higher rate of tendon exposure in STSG versus hatchet flap (11 vs. 1, p = 0.0019), but a lower rate of skin necrosis (5 vs. 16, p = 0.0190) and epidermolysis (1 vs. 12, p = 0.0028). Scar quality in STSG was superior to hatchet flap in all domains of POSAS. MHOQ scores were similar between both groups with no statistical difference in overall scores (p = 0.2165). CONCLUSIONS: STSG appeared to have less compromise in activities of daily living, better satisfaction and improved scar quality than hatchet flap, but a higher rate of tendon exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:4266-4273, 2024.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".