Retrospective study of the application of acellular dermis in reconstructing full‐thickness skin defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to evaluate the acellular dermis' utility in reconstructing full-thickness defects after scar contracture releasing and giant nevus resection. From the year 2012 to 2014, 18 consecutive patients underwent composite graft (thin autograft and alloderma) transplantation. Among these patients, 16 patients suffered from burned scar contracture in the upper extremities, and two young cases were met with giant nevus on the upper extremity. Ten of 13 adult cases with upper extremity scar affection were chosen for a comparative study. Twenty hands were randomly allocated into group A and group B. The thick autograft was used to repair one upper extremity in group B, and the composite grafts were used to cover the other upper extremity in group A. Besides appraisal of the recipient sites' function and aesthetics, donor sites were also estimated after a mean of 12 months' follow-up through the Vancouver Scar Score Scale. After evaluation in the above comparative study through the Vancouver Score Scale, in the recipient evaluation, no statistical difference was found in the pigmentation score between two groups, while statistical difference was achieved in other aspects (vascularity, pliability, height). In the donor site's evaluation, statistical difference was established between the two groups in all facets. One adult patient was dissatisfied with the hypertrophic scar on the donor site, and about almost a half of the area became a hypertrophic scar in the recipient site. No atrophic change occurred; one little girl, suffering from large nevus, was operated on by removing nearly the whole giant nevus on the upper limb. Unfortunately, she presented with finger tip necrosis occurring. The finger tip was not ultimately preserved and was repaired with an abdomen flap. Acellular dermal matrix is an excellent option and a useful tool for reconstructing large full-thickness skin defects after releasing burned scar contracture and removing giant nevus. With thin-skin graft meshed, a donor site's presentation brings courage to patients, while recipient sites can reach nearly the same elasticity and function compared to thick-grafted skin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".