Repeat liposuction-curettage treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis is safe and effective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liposuction-curettage (LC) is an effective surgical therapy option for axillary hyperhidrosis, with less scarring compared with radical excision of axillary skin. Although this method has proven to be effective, the treatment of nonresponders to minimally invasive surgery has not been previously defined. Whether these patients benefit from a second surgical procedure has not been evaluated so far. OBJECTIVES: To investigate efficacy and side-effects of a second LC with an aggressive rasping cannula in patients with insufficient prior surgery. METHODS: Nineteen nonresponders to prior LC (13 female and six male) underwent a second LC with a rasping cannula. Gravimetry was performed before and 8 months after surgery. Side-effects, patient satisfaction, the surgeons' intraoperative evaluation and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) before and after surgery were documented. RESULTS: Sweat rates showed a reduction of 69% in 17 (89%) patients. Two patients (11%) did not respond to surgery. Eighty-four per cent of all patients were completely satisfied or satisfied with postoperative results. No severe side-effects were observed. The surgeon reported slightly increased difficulties during dissection of dermis from subcutaneous fat in three patients. Assessment of scars showed an excellent aesthetic outcome (mean VSS 0.79 before vs. 1.1 after surgery). CONCLUSIONS: LC using an aggressive cannula is an effective therapy option for patients with insufficient response to prior LC surgery, with a low risk of side-effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".