Complicated Infantile Hemangioma of the Lip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lip hemangiomas have traditionally been approached with expectant management. However, intervention is warranted for associated complications, including facial disfigurement, feeding difficulties, speech impairment, and psychosocial manifestations. The authors evaluated outcomes of complicated lip hemangiomas resected during the proliferative as compared with the involutional phase. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with complicated lip hemangiomas managed with resection in the proliferative or involutional phase from 2005 to 2011 was performed. A transverse elliptical vermilion-mucosal resection technique was used. Review parameters included demographics, lesion size and location, growth phase, hemangioma-related complications, and preoperative management (corticosteroid or pulsed dye laser). Evaluated outcomes included surgical complications, recurrence, and patient- and surgeon-reported aesthetics. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent surgical resection of a lip hemangioma (10 proliferative and 11 involutional), with a mean follow-up of 21.4 and 23.3 months, respectively. The two groups were comparable with respect to lesion size and location. Patients in the involutional group experienced higher rates of hemangioma-related complications (bleeding, 45 percent versus 10 percent; speech impairment, 82 percent versus 0 percent; feeding difficulties, 82 percent versus 20 percent; and psychosocial issues, 100 percent versus 80 percent). There were no postoperative aesthetic concerns. One recurrence in the proliferative group was treated with reresection. Speech therapy was required for 82 percent of patients in the involutional group. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is efficacious treatment for hemangiomas of the lip and yields acceptable aesthetic results during both the proliferative and involutional phases. Resection in the proliferative phase should be considered to prevent complications associated with delayed treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".