Intraoperative and delayed wound approximation in closure of skin defects in different areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Wound approximation device is an interesting reconstructive option but not well popularised. In this study we present a simple device that can be used for immediate or delayed closure of large dermal wounds in different anatomical areas. METHOD: Patients with acute and chronic wounds were recruited and underwent immediate intra-operative wound approximation and/or delayed wound approximation, with a home-made wound approximation device. RESULTS: Approximation time in the immediate closure group ranged from 20-140 minutes. Satisfactory scars were obtained in 19 patients (76%) and adherent scars developed in 6 patients. Delayed wound approximation was used successfully in closure of 9 defects. CONCLUSION: This simple dermal wound approximation device can be used intraoperatively to successfully close large difficult wounds, located on the trunk and thigh, with minimal complications. The device can also be used to approximate delayed wounds located in regions where closure is particularly problematic, like the lower leg, foot, and scalp. Some modifications of the device are needed to improve its safety and efficacy. Wound tension is detrimental to adequate wound healing and tensile strength, another basic principle that should not be overlooked to avoid wound dehiscence. Wound approximation is adding to reconstructive options, not replacing them, and they must always be considered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".