Evaluation of postoperative drainage with application of platelet‐rich and platelet‐poor plasma following hemithyroidectomy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) have been used to improve hemostasis and wound healing after surgery; however, randomized controlled trials proving their efficacy are lacking. METHODS: Hemithyroidectomy was performed on 52 patients. Autologous PRP and PPP were applied during wound closure in the treatment group, while saline was applied in the controls. Outcome measures were postoperative drainage, pain, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The 24-hour cumulative drainage was reduced by 29.3% in the treatment group (44.9 mL vs 63.5 mL, p = .039). The treatment group required less analgesic medication despite similar pain scores; however, the difference was not significant. There was a trend toward decreased length of stay for the PRP/PPP group (p = .059). CONCLUSIONS: Hemithyroidectomy served as a stringent test to evaluate the wound-healing capacity of platelet-rich and platelet-poor plasma. This study provides evidence that PRP and PPP reduced postoperative drainage in soft-tissue surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".