Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy and secondary intention healing after excision of acral lentiginous melanoma on the foot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Melanoma in dark-skinned individuals often develops in an acral lentiginous fashion on the foot and wide excision usually results in a substantial defect. Various repair methods, including free flap, full-thickness skin graft and secondary intention healing (SIH), are used to repair these defects. Recently, use of negative pressure wound treatment (NPWT) has been shown to accelerate wound healing in different types of wound. OBJECTIVES: To compare the functional and cosmetic results of NPWT and SIH in patients who underwent wide excision of melanomas on the foot. METHODS: The wound defects of 22 patients after wide excision of melanoma on the foot were treated using SIH (n = 13) or NPWT (n = 9). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in time to complete wound healing between the two groups. However, evaluation using the Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale at the time of complete healing showed that the mean score of the NPWT group was significantly lower than that of the SIH group. The NPWT group also had significantly better results than the SIH group in terms of total score, vascularity and height of the scars. As for complications, no wound infection was encountered in the NPWT group, whereas eight of the 13 patients in SIH group had wound infections during the course of treatment despite frequent and meticulous aseptic dressing changes. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that, despite the drawback of rather prolonged healing time, NPWT is an excellent therapeutic option for wounds after wide excision of melanoma on the foot, with acceptable functional and cosmetic outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".