The effect of topically applied tissue expanders on radial forearm skin pliability: A prospective self-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of pre-operatively applied topical tissue expansion tapes have previously demonstrated increased rates of primary closure of radial forearm free flap donor sites. This is associated with a reduced cost of care as well as improved cosmetic appearance of the donor site. Unfortunately, little is known about the biomechanical changes these tapes cause in the forearm skin. This study tested the hypothesis that the use of topically applied tissue expansion tapes will result in an increase in forearm skin pliability in patients undergoing radial forearm free flap surgery. METHODS: Twenty-four patients scheduled for head and neck surgery requiring a radial forearm free flap were enrolled in this prospective self-controlled observational study. DynaClose tissue expansion tapes (registered Canica Design Inc, Almonte, Canada) were applied across the forearm one week pre-operatively. Immediately prior to surgery, the skin pliability of the dorsal and volar forearm sites were measured with the Cutometer MPA 580 (registered Courage-Khazaka Electronic GmbH, Cologne, Germany) on both the treatment and contralateral (control) arms. Paired t-tests were used to compare treatment to control at both sites, with p < 0.025 defined as statistically significant. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in pliability by a mean of 0.05 mm (SD = 0.09 mm) between treatment and control arms on the dorsal site (95% CI [0.01, 0.08], p = 0.018). This corresponded to an 8% increase in pliability. In contrast, the volar site did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control (mean difference = 0.04 mm, SD = 0.20 mm, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.12], p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: This result provides evidence that the pre-operative application of topical tissue expansion tapes produces measurable changes in skin biomechanical properties. The location of this change on the dorsal forearm is consistent with the method of tape application. While this increase in skin pliability may account for the improved rate of primary donor site closure reported using this technique, the results did not reach our definition of clinical significance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".