Continuous Versus Interrupted Sutures for Facial Surgery Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cosmetic appearance of a facial scar is a concern for patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Although suturing technique may influence scar cosmesis, few studies have been published comparing suturing methods for MMS repair. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cosmetic appearance of facial MMS scars sutured with either continuous or interrupted percutaneous nylon sutures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with facial MMS defects were randomized to have half their scar sutured with interrupted 5-0 nylon stitches, whereas the other half of the scar was closed with running 5-0 nylon stitches. The appearance of each half of the scar was assessed at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 6 months by the principal investigator. Blinded photographic evaluation at 1 week and 6 months was completed by a plastic surgeon and general dermatologist. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were entered into the trial, and 101 completed all time point assessments. There was no statistically significant difference in scar outcome using each of the 3 scar assessment scales, at any time point, for any assessor (blinded and nonblinded). CONCLUSION: Interrupted and continuous 5-0 nylon sutures result in an equivalent final cosmetic appearance of facial MMS scars. Given its advantages, running sutures may be the preferred closure technique for facial repair.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".