Canadian Trends in Free Flap Management for Microsurgical Lower Limb Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:Free tissue transfers have become a mainstay in lower limb salvage, allowing safe and reliable reconstruction after trauma, tumor extirpation, and complex wounds. The optimal perioperative (PO) management of these flaps remains controversial. This study aims to assess the current state of practice among Canadian microsurgeons.Methods:Sixty-four Canadian microsurgeons were approached to complete an online questionnaire regarding their PO management of fasciocutaneous free flaps used for lower limb reconstruction. Trends in dangling timing and duration, use of venous couplers, compressive garments, thromboprophylaxis, and surgeons’ satisfaction with their protocol were assessed.Results:Twenty-eight surgeons responded. Fifty-seven percent did not have a specific mobilization protocol. Dangling was mainly initiated on postoperative days 5 to 6 (44%). The most common protocol duration was 5 to 6 days (43%). The concern for prolonged venous pooling was the main reason for delay of dangling (71%). Compressive garments were placed routinely by 12 surgeons (43%) with 20% starting before dangling, 46% with dangling, and 33% after dangling. Venous couplers were routinely used by 24 surgeons (85.7%). Trends in management were influenced by previous training in 53.6% of cases (vs evidence-based medicine 7.1%). Although 89.3% were satisfied with their approach, 92.8% would consider changing practice if higher-level evidence was available.Conclusions:The majority of Canadian microsurgeons initiate dangling early and utilize venous couplers. However, the use of compressive garments is limited. Trends in management are largely based on personal experience. Nearly all surgeons would consider changing their practice if higher-level evidence was available.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 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".