Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Split thickness skin graft harvesting causes a certain degree of scaring on the donor site. Donor site scar can cause aesthetic and functional sequelae on the patient's body. Our goal was to study the process of donor site selection, and then evaluate donor site scars and their impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS. This retrospective study included 45 patients aged 5 to 61 years (in average 36), who have been treated with STSG in the 2004–2010 period. 57.8% of them were men. On a follow-up visit, we photographed healed skin defects and donor sites. We then determined and compared the surface areas of skin defect and the donor site using the Adobe® Illustrator® CS5 computer program. Donor site scars were assessed according to the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). We examined scar’s light touch sensitivity with monofilaments and skin colouring compared to adjacent healthy skin using colorimeter. Patients were also interviewed about their treatment course in a form of a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS. Our research has revealed that 20.0% of patients participated in the decision making process of choosing the donor site, while in 80.0% the donor site was chosen by the surgeon himself. 6.7% of patients were not satisfied with their donor site. Most of the patients (37/45) had donor sites on their thighs. In average, the donor site surface area was 94% bigger than the skin defect area. We found statistically significant differences in VSS values, light touch sensitivity and skin colouring between donor site scaring and adjacent healthy skin. CONCLUSIONS. Donor site scar can represent a lasting aesthetic and functional disability for patients. Our research has shown that most of the patients do not participate in the donor site selection process, but are satisfied with their donor site. In most cases, STGSs are harvested from the thigh, other anatomical regions, where scarring would be aesthetically less obtrusive, are underused. Skin grafts are mostly oversized in comparison to primary skin defect, which indicates irregularities in skin grafting process. In the future it will be necessary to create national guidelines and clinical pathways for harvesting STSG, also based on the findings of our research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".