Long-Term Cicatrization Analysis in Periocular Incisions for Oculoplastic Surgery Performed With Cold Blade and Colorado Needle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the degree of satisfaction of patients and observers about scars secondary to skin incisions in oculoplastic surgery performed with cold blade versus Colorado microcautery needle. METHODS: A cross-sectional noninferiority comparative study was performed. Eighty patients undergoing surgery for blepharoptosis repair, lateral tarsal strip, or dacryocystorhinostomy with cold blade or Colorado needle between January 2011 and July 2011 were included. Groups were paired by sex and surgery type. Scars were assessed between January 2012 and July 2012 using 2 validated scales (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale [POSAS] and Vancouver Scar Scale [VSS]) by the patient and 2 trained observers. Sample size was predetermined, and 38 patients were needed in each group to detect differences of at least 8 points in the POSAS with 90% power. RESULTS: Patients operated with Colorado needle were 7.3 years older than those operated with cold blade (p = 0.007). No statistically significant differences between both techniques were observed either in the individual items or in the composite scores, correcting for age (POSAS, p = 0.518; VSS, p = 0.367). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that patients undergoing dacryocystorhinostomy had significantly lower scores in OSAS (p= 0.034) and VSS (p = 0.034), independent of the other variables in the model. No association between the surgical instrument and the final score was observed for any of the analyzed scales. CONCLUSIONS: Esthetic results of periocular scars secondary to skin incisions performed with cold blade or Colorado needle are clinically similar in Spanish patients. Esthetic result of dacryocystorhinostomy scars showed lower scores in OSAS and VSS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".