Survey of Early Complications of Primary Skin Graft and Secondary Skin Graft (Delayed) Surgery after Resection of Burnwaste in Hospitalized Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Burning is the second most common cause of home injuries in Iran that is often the cause of conflicts between children and young adults. Burning can lead to early and late complications that scar and contracture are the most common. Burn waste treatment is done by two methods: excision and then skin graft after the formation of granulation tissue; and excision and graft simultaneously that in this study, these two methods are compared. METHODS: This was performed as a quasi-experimental analysis and retrospective study on all patients who were hospitalized for burn scar. All patients who have associated with weak eningimmune diseases such as diabetes, acquired immunodeficiency or congenital, taking steroids and patients undergoing chemotherapy etc. are excluded. The method of grafting in patients is primary graft procedure that was compared with patients who are treated using secondary graft. Data collected through review of patients' hospital and clinic chart. RESULTS: The mean burn percentage in the primary repair group was 14.4% and in the delayed repair group was 16.6%, respectively. The incidence of hematoma in both groups was zero. Skin necrosis and graft rejection and infection in the primary repair group was in 3.7% of patients and in the delayed repair group was in 1.2% of cases (P=0.5) CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, no difference was observed between the two methods of excision and primary graft with delayed graft in the incidence of graft rejection. Due to the shorter treatment of primary graft and patient satisfaction and also according to the findings of this study excision and primary graft method seems appropriate method for treating old waste burning.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".