Objective and Subjective Scar Aesthetics in Minimal Access vs Conventional Access Parathyroidectomy and Thyroidectomy Surgical Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if performing parathyroidectomy surgery through minimal access (MA) incisions has any notable aesthetic or quality-of-life impact on patients compared with conventional access (CON) techniques. DESIGN: Paired cohort with (1) a prospective MA incision and scar cohort and (2) a sex- and age-matched (within 3 years) retrospective CON incision and scar cohort. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Fifteen patients enrolled in prospective study protocol over a 2-year period; 11 patients met inclusion criteria. A sex- and age-matched retrospective cohort of patients was selected from a patient population undergoing surgical treatment of thyroid neoplastic diseases using a CON approach. Inclusion criteria were use of MA incision for parathyroidectomy and return for long-term follow-up scar assessment. INTERVENTIONS: Minimal access parathyroidectomy surgery vs CON thyroidectomy surgical procedures, postoperative follow-up assessment of scar aesthetics by patient and naive viewers, and digital photography and analysis of the surgical incision site. All patients were followed for at least 8 months after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Vancouver Scar Scale, and photographic scar analysis by naive viewers. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in scar assessment scale scores between the MA and CON cohorts and no clinically significant difference in overall patient satisfaction with scars between cohorts (POSAS: Patient Scar Assessment Scale, P = .14, and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, P = .79; Vancouver Scar Scale, P = .76). There was increased visibility of scars in the CON cohort to naive viewers. CONCLUSIONS: Although they were more readily visible to naive viewers, CON (larger) cervical scars created in parathyroidectomy or thyroidectomy surgery do not translate into decreased patient satisfaction with their scar result. This may indicate a limited quality-of-life benefit in using MA approaches in transcervical surgical procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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".