Temporal Hollowing following Coronal Incision: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronal incisions are used in traumatic, reconstructive, and cosmetic procedures to access the lateral facial skeleton. Temporal hollowing is a common complication following coronal incision that affects the patient both physically and psychologically. Several dissections have been recommended through this area to avoid injury to the frontal branch of the facial nerve and the temporal fat pad, which is thought to be the cause of hollowing. The purpose of this study was to identify the cause of postoperative temporal hollowing. METHODS: Patients requiring a coronal incision were recruited prospectively. Each side of the head in all patients was randomized to suprafascial, subfascial, or deep dissection. An unmarked envelope containing the type of dissection to be performed for each side was used. All envelopes contained equal distributions of all groups. The incidence and severity of temporal hollowing 6 months postoperatively were measured clinically and by computed tomographic volume analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with 54 sides (18 suprafascial, 15 subfascial, and 21 deep) completed the study. There were no demographic differences among the three groups. The incidence and severity of temporal hollowing were lowest with suprafascial dissection. Other factors associated with the presence of temporal hollowing included a reduction in body mass index. There were no injuries to the frontal nerve in any of the dissections. Postoperative temporal hollowing was associated with surgical approach and postoperative weight loss. CONCLUSION: Elevation of a coronal flap in the suprafascial plane and minimization of patient weight loss may decrease the incidence of postoperative temporal hollowing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".