Placement of Absorbable Dermal Staples in Mammaplasty and Abdominoplasty: A 12-Month Prospective Study of 60 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The duration to close an incision is an important consideration in plastic surgery. The placement of Insorb absorbable subcuticular staples (Insorb, Incisive Surgical, Plymouth, MN) may allow for a decreased closure time compared with other modalities. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the utility of Insorb staples for the closure of mammaplasty and abdominoplasty incisions. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent anterior abdominal dermatolipectomy, total circular abdominal dermatolipectomy, bilateral breast reduction, or bilateral mastopexy were evaluated in a prospective study. Dermal closure was achieved on 1 side of each patient with Insorb absorbable staples and on the other with absorbable monofilament sutures. Scar quality, pruritus, and pain were scored according to a modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Closure with absorbable staples was approximately 7-fold faster than closure with absorbable sutures for all surgical procedures. No significant differences in mVSS scores were noted between incisions closed with staples vs sutures. CONCLUSIONS: Absorbable staples enable faster closure of a surgical incision without compromising scar quality or patient comfort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Therapeutic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".