MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999729020 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181a3f4e7

External Skin Expansion

2009· letter· en· W1999729020 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Bell

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlistersTraction (geology)Tension (geology)Materials scienceSurgeryComposite materialMedicineEngineeringMechanical engineeringCompression (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir: I was delighted to read the article by Daya and Nair confirming the concept of external skin expansion.1 I have been working on this principle for 8 years with engineers from Canica Design, Inc. (Almonte, Ontario, Canada), developing products to accomplish wound closure and presurgical external skin expansion in a safe and reliable way. There are two complications one may encounter in the skin with tape application under tension. The first is blistering from the shear forces at the skin adhesive junction.2 These blisters are painful and can cause scarring. Reinforced strips do not stretch, which means that when they are adhered under tension, all of the force on the tape is transferred to the skin beneath the strip. The skin is no longer compliant, as it is bonded to the reinforced fabric. The skin right at the end of the strip suffers the highest load. The second problem is pain. Dr. Dal Cin describes expanding the skin to close an 8-cm skin graft on a scalp with dynamic external forces over a period of 149 days. The patient lost enthusiasm at several points along the way because of discomfort. However, with the adjustable features of dynamic traction, gently stretching the scalp, the graft was excised and primary closure achieved.2,3 The Canica Design solution has been to simply use an elastomer between two strips of Micropore tape (3M, St. Paul, Minn.). This provides gentle relentless traction on the skin. The level of tension is set initially by a limiter controlling the stretch of the elastomer, which protects even the most easily damaged skin (e.g., leg ulcers in diabetics and in irradiated skin). Similarly, this mechanism of controlled tensioning reduces pain. It is noninvasive, repeatable, and very easily applied. The product is called DynaClose. It is licensed for wound closure and is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for surgical skin expansion. It is approved in Canada for both uses. We believe this product offers benefits similar to the technique described by Daya and Nair in prestretching skin but will avoid the problems of skin irritation, breakdown, and pain. This is achieved by controlled elastic forces. As Daya and Nair state, the use of the external traction principle has many potential applications4–6: prestretching skin before surgical reconstruction, pain relief, and scar reduction. The Canica DynaClose tape can also be used in open wounds, which can be viewed directly through the transparent silicone sheeting, so that any infectious process would be directly evident (Fig. 1). This principle of dynamic closure is invaluable in closing unclosable wounds nonsurgically. DynaClose is the latest and simplest of the Canica family of Dynamic Wound Closure devices, which are well documented in the literature.7–10Fig. 1.: This fasciotomy was primarily controlled by DynaClose tape to prevent excessive retraction. The tapes were changed weekly to achieve delayed primary closure by 5 weeks, with no secondary intervention required. (Above) Photograph obtained on July 9, 2007. (Center and below) Photographs obtained on April 23, 2008.With my evident conflict of interest as a paid design consultant for Canica Design, I cannot participate in a valid study of these products, but I would encourage others to assess the benefits of this newly available technology in an objective fashion. Michael S. G. Bell, M.D. Plastic, Reconstructive, Cosmetic Surgery and Laser Resurfacing 1919 Riverside Drive, Suite 402 Ottawa, Ontario K1H 1A2, Canada [email protected]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207