Is the Dermis Graft a Reliable and Effective Option for Wound Coverage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir Seung-Kyu Han and coworkers reported on the dermis graft for wound coverage.1 They advocate (for small to medium-sized wounds on exposed areas, such as the face, neck, forearms, and hands) the dermis graft technique (applied to 53 wounds) as superior compared with the regular skin graft technique (applied to 33 wounds). Data were verified by the Vancouver Scar Scale and a visual analogue scale (for patient satisfaction). Better aesthetic outcomes for both the recipient and donor sites, a faster donor-site healing process, and reduced patient pain and discomfort were claimed to be the main advantages. By the way, we believe that many of the advantages mentioned in the article are due to the basic principles of plastic surgery. It is well known that the amount of dermis included with the graft determines both the likelihood of survival and the amount of contracture. Also, the recovery and aesthetic outcome of the full-thickness graft are superior to those of the split-thickness graft.2 We usually harvest 0.015-inch split-thickness skin grafts applied principally on wounds with a well-vascularized bed, over periosteum, peritenon, or perineurium. However, use of both split- and full-thickness skin grafts follows strict indications (i.e., they are used for traumatic wounds that cannot be closed primarily, defects after oncologic resection, burns, scar releasing, congenital pathologies (i.e., syndactyly), and nipple-areola reconstruction). If the harvesting technique is correct, a proper dressing is applied, and good postoperative care is taken, morbidity is minimized.3 The dermis graft seems to have only a slight advantage in donor-site morbidity, particularly with regard to pain, because of the immediate covering of the exposed nerve fibers. On the other hand, as reported, for re-epithelialization of large defects, the healing process can be very long. We never use skin grafts on the face and neck, except in oncologic cases, in the elderly, and when general conditions are compromised, thereby requiring a short operation time, where small to medium defects should be closed by means of local flaps. The main advantages of local flaps are that they have the same texture and pliability as the surrounding skin (improved cosmetic appearance), they have a reliable blood supply, there is minimal donor-site morbidity, they have the ability to restore sensation despite being technically more challenging, size is limited (two or more contemporary flaps may be necessary in large defects, if not skin expansion), and the arc of rotation can be limited. In the end, skin substitutes (such as Hyalomatrix, Integra, AlloDerm, Apligraf, and so on) are today very common in clinical practice, principally for medium to large defects.4–7 Skin substitutes or a combination of dermal substitutes and cultured epithelium may replace autografting. These procedures are still expensive and, in our experience, heal with a conspicuous and unfavorable scar, but they do not require a donor site, and it is probable that in the near future, as the technology improves, skin substitutes will replace, in great measure, skin grafting. Luigi Annacontini, M.D. Domenico Parisi, M.D. Aurelio Portincasa, M.D. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".