Do zip‐type skin‐closing devices show better wound status compared to conventional staple devices in total knee arthroplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the pain score, cosmetic outcome and wound complication rate between zip-type skin-closing device and conventional staple device. Forty-five subjects with zip-type skin-closing device (the zip group) and 45 subjects with the conventional staple device (the staple group) after total knee arthroplasty were compared. Visual analogue scale score was significantly higher on postoperative (PO) 1, 3, 14 day (D) in the staple group compared to the zip group (P < 0·05). The Vancouver scar score was significantly better in the zip group compared to that of the staple group (4·6 ± 0·7 versus 6·9 ± 1·3, P = 0·043) on PO 90D. There was no significant wound complication rate between the two groups. The zip-type skin-closing device showed less pain PO 14D, especially during dressing and removal of the device, and better cosmetic outcome 3 months after surgeries. Surgeons may consider using the zip-type skin-closing device for patients who want less pain and better cosmetic outcome.
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) | 0.007 | 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".