Angular Dermoid Cysts in the Endoscopic Era: Retrospective Analysis of Aesthetic Results Using the Direct, Classic Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of the endoscopic approach was recently introduced for the removal of angular dermoid cysts. Therefore, it was considered necessary to evaluate the conventional direct incisional approach for angular dermoid cyst excision, with respect to long-term aesthetic results and complications. The need to change from the direct excisional technique to the endoscopic approach in hair-bearing areas was investigated. During a 25-year period, 95 children were surgically treated by a single surgeon (H.G.T.) for removal of angular dermoid cysts. Only 22 patients (23 percent) were available for reassessment. The follow-up periods after the excisional procedure were 1 to 12 years. Assessments were performed by a 15-member team of assessors, who scored the aesthetic results of the scars with comparative slides. In addition, a questionnaire was mailed to each family, to document the family members' perceptions of the aesthetic appearance of the scar. Twenty-eight families (29 percent) responded. The complications were determined through the medical records department. For 19 of 22 patients (86 percent), the scar was scored by 85 percent of the assessors as excellent or good. No assessor stated that a scar was unacceptable. In the family questionnaires, 26 of 28 families (93 percent) reported an excellent scar and two (7 percent) reported a fair scar. No family stated that the scar was unacceptable. The operative notes for the 95 patients revealed that only two cysts had ruptured during the surgical procedure (2 percent) and only one infection had occurred (1 percent). No other major complications were reported. It is concluded that the direct method for dermoid cyst excision is an excellent approach, with a low complication rate and a very high aesthetic success rate, when performed through a supra-eyebrow or infra-eyebrow incision.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".