## 3 Results
### Thermographic Exploration  
In the control group, after the thermographic analysis, it was noticeable that the maximum average temperature was 35.12 \({}^{\circ}\)C; the temperature of the flap was stable. It had maximum differentiation points and there were no visible hot spots. Diffusion of the flap temperature was homogenous both at the center and at the edges of the flap (Figure 3a).  
In the CAP group, the temperature of the flap did not increase and there were no visible hot spots (Figure 3b). For the cases where the infusion was normal, a slight vasodilation at the periphery of the flap was observed, with no arterial flow problems. Furthermore, in the CAP group, less ischemia was noticed, which, from a thermographic point of view, was observed as an average maximum temperature at the flap level of 35.95 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with a large revascularization area that included the entire flap. In addition, this group did not show any signs of ischemia through thermography (Figure 3e).  
In the L-NAME group, as Figure 3c shows, the maximum mean flap temperature was 33.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, much lower than the control group, but it was homogeneously distributed, with a visible deep vasodilation by thermographic imaging, covering a large area of the flap (extended yellow zone). The analyzed tissue was well perfused, with no visible ischemic signs, except for one subject.  
In the PRP group, the average maximum flap temperature was 34.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C; for three subjects, it was noted that the flap temperature increased and there were visible hot spots, from which it could be deduced that there was a problem with the arterial flow. Hence, there was a higher necrosis rate than for the CAP and L-NAME groups. Due to the administered substance, there was a clearly visible thermodynamic vasodilation that covered a large area of the flap, but with signs of hypoperfusion (Figure 3d).  
From the thermographic point of view, the best-perfused group without ischemic problems at the flap was the L-NAME group. There were no temperature variations at the flap. In addition, it had the lowest value of the coefficient of variation and standard deviation (Table 1).  
Figure 2: Relative necrosis surface (%) from the entire flap surface as determined by photo analysis. Dehiscent and prenecrotic surfaces were included into the necrosis area. * \(p<0.05\); ** \(p<0.01\).  
Statistically, the variation coefficient for each group was less than 5%. Therefore, the groups were homogeneous, without temperature fluctuations of the flaps in each group.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Temperature** & **Mean** & **Standard** & **Coefficient** & \\
**Max Average** & & **Deviation** & **of Variation** & **\(p\)** \\ \hline Control group & 35.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 26.12 & 4.54 & 0.173\% & ns \\ CAP & 34.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 24.60 & 4.10 & 0.166\% & ns \\ PRP & 34.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 24.98 & 4.16 & 0.166\% & ns \\ L-NAME & 33.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 24.28 & 4.01 & 0.163\% & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Statistical interpretation of the data obtained from the processing of thermographic images (ns—non-significant).  
Figure 3: Thermographic images of the groups of rats included in the study. (**a**) Thermographic image of a control-group rat above the flap—print screen (PS). (**b**) Thermographic image of a CAP-group rat above the flap—PS. (**c**) Thermographic image of a L-NAME-group rat above the flap—PS. (**d**) Thermographic image of a PRP-group rat above the flap—PS. (**e**) Thermographic image of a CAP-group rat above the flap—PS.