Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir: We read with great interest the article by Shermak, Mallalieu, and Chang on the impact of barbed sutures on wound closure in body contouring surgery.1 We have used barbed sutures in over 100 body contouring procedures over the past 2 years. Unlike the authors, whose experience has been with the Quill suture (Quill SRS; Angiotech, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), we have used a different barbed suture, the V-loc (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland), in body lifts, abdominoplasty, breast reduction, brachioplasty, and thigh reduction. Like the authors, we have also had a few complications with wound healing. However, these wound healing problems occurred from our initial experience. We report few cases of wound breakdown, delayed healing, and suture spitting with the use of this absorbable barbed suture. We believe that these complications occurred at the ends of incision lines. Instead of completing a subcuticular closure with the V-loc by coming out at the end of the incision line, our initial experience was to reach the end of the incision line and suture back for several passes. Once we reverted to completing the subcuticular by coming out at the end of the incision line, our complication rate decreased dramatically. We believe that the other wound healing complications were related to complications such as fat necrosis. Overall, we have found that the V-loc suture is easy to handle and durable, and that its use for major wound closure has potentially reduced operative time. Furthermore, the scars at 12-month follow-up have been satisfactory. Anh T. V. Nguyen, F.R.A.C.S., Dip.Surg.Anat. Morris Ritz, M.D. Melbourne Institute of Plastic Surgery Malvern, Victoria, Australia DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication or of the associated article.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".