Patient perception, satisfaction and cosmetic results of surgical atrial septal defect closure: Minithoracotomy versus sternotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare two surgical techniques [right lateral minithoracotomy (RLMT) and median sternotomy (MS)] used to close atrial septal defects (ASD), and measure patient satisfaction, cosmetic results, and patient perception with tests used for evaluating scar and mental status. Methods: A total of 26 ASD patients were included in the study, of which 14 were operated with the MS method (group MS), and 12 were operated with the RLMT method (group RLMT). Patients were divided into two groups according to the incision sites. Patients’ incision scars were assessed objectively according to Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment (POSAS) criteria. Besides, patients were administered Patient Satisfaction Score (PSS), Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ), and The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) to measure their perception. Results: Overall patient satisfaction was greater in the RLMT group than the MS group (p=0.021). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of VSS, BIQ, HAM-A, and skin type. Average scar length (p
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".