Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of simultaneous transplantation of multiple foot flaps in repairing defects of varying degrees on the palmar side of multiple fingers. METHODS: This study was a retrospective observational study. From February 2020 to March 2023, 11 patients aged 23-52 years with defects on the palmar side of multiple fingers (with 38 affected fingers) meeting the inclusion criteria were hospitalized at Longgang Orthopedics Hospital of Shenzhen, including 8 males (with 31 affected fingers) and 3 females (with 7 affected fingers). All affected fingers sustained skin and soft tissue defects, along with exposed deep tissue such as finger bones and tendons, and 2 thumbs exhibited nail bed and distal phalanx defects. The defect area of each finger ranged from 1.5 cm×1.0 cm to 5.5 cm×3.0 cm. Foot flaps were designed based on the area and depth of the finger defects, and multiple foot flaps were transplanted simultaneously to repair the wounds of fingers. The area of single flap resected ranged from 2.0 cm×1.0 cm to 5.5 cm×3.0 cm. Donor site wounds were closed directly or covered using artificial dermis or split-thickness skin grafts. The number of resected flaps, the number of affected fingers repaired, and the surgical duration were recorded. The flap survival and foot donor site wound healing were observed postoperatively. The flap and donor and recipient sites recovery were observed during follow-up. At the final follow-up, the functional recovery of affected fingers was evaluated based on the trial criteria of the Chinese Medical Association's Hand Surgery Society for function evaluation of thumb and finger reconstruction, the sensory function of the flaps was assessed by the sensory function evaluation standard of the British Medical Research Council, the cold tolerance of the affected hands was evaluated with the Cold Intolerance Severity Scale, the scars at the recipient and donor sites were assessed using the Vancouver scar scale (VSS), and the function recovery of flap donor foot was evaluated with the Maryland Foot Score criteria. RESULTS: Donor sites were selected from 16 feet with 2-4 flaps harvested from each foot. Specifically, skin and soft tissue defects in 27 affected fingers were repaired using free lateral toe flaps, skin and soft tissue defects in 9 affected fingers were repaired using free medial foot flaps, and skin and soft tissue defects with finger bone defects in 2 affected fingers were repaired using free toenail osteocutaneous flaps. The surgical duration ranged from 5.60 to 9.25 hours. Postoperatively, all transplanted flaps in affected fingers survived, and all foot donor site wounds healed. Follow-up for 12-25 months showed that the appearance, color, and texture of the flaps were similar to the surrounding normal skin. The affected finger pulp was full with the fingertip having restored pain and touch sensation. There was no pain in the donor site of foot, and the walking ability of patients was not affected. At the final follow-up, the functional recovery was evaluated as excellent for 36 affected fingers and good for 2 affected fingers. The sensory function rating of the flaps was graded as S3-S4, and all affected fingers were mild intolerant to cold. VSS scores of the scars at the recipient sites ranged from 1-3, and VSS scores of the scars at the donor sites ranged from 1-5. The functional recovery of all flap donor feet was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous transplantation of multiple foot flaps is an effective treatment method for repairing defects of varying degrees on the palmar side of multiple fingers, resulting in excellent aesthetic and functional recovery of the affected fingers while causing minimal damage to the donor site.
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".