This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Surg. 1998;133:465.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We read with great expectations the article from Foster et al¹ in the August issue of the ARCHIVES, in which the authors develop a rationale for flap selection. We hoped to find answers to questions raised when we read their similar article² 1 month ago, which used the same results and conclusions while focusing only on ischial pressure sore coverage. Unfortunately, we again found simply a ranking of flaps according to their primary healing rate. While we congratulate the authors on their convincingly high 89% success rate, we would like to see an explanation of why the flap recommended as the first choice should be superior to the second-choice flap, and why the same flap is superior when applied to one location but should be avoided in the next.

From our own study,³ we concluded that flap selection is not the key determinant. Outcome is not based on flap selection, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The early management of gunshot wounds Part II: the abdomen, extremities and special situations
Whitfield and Garner
Trauma 2007;9:47-71.
ABSTRACT