Otoplasty Outcomes With Different Suture Materials in a Rabbit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Otoplasty is a commonly performed procedure to correct prominent ears. Many different otoplasty techniques have been described but there is no gold standard technique. As well, many different suture materials are used in otoplasty but studies directly comparing different sutures materials are lacking. An otoplasty outcome study with Nylon and Mersilene (2 of the most commonly used sutures in otoplasty) sutures was conducted using a rabbit model. Each rabbit ear was randomized to receive a Mustardé-type horizontal mattress suture with either 4-0 clear Nylon (N = 12 ears) or 4-0 Mersilene sutures (N = 12 ears). Two weeks after surgery, the auricular bend angle was measured with a finger goniometer and histologic analysis with hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed on the rabbit auricular cartilage. Overall, there was no significant difference in the mean bend angle between the 2 groups (Nylon: 135.8°, SD = 22.7° and Mersilene: 143.2°, SD = 19.7°; P = 0.559). Also, no qualitative difference was observed on histologic analysis between the 2 suture groups. In the current rabbit model study, both Nylon and Mersilene sutures performed well and no significant differences were noted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".