Assessment of the Combined Efficacy of Needling and the Use of Silicone Gel in the Treatment of C-Section and Other Surgical Hypertrophic Scars and Keloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the individual effectiveness of needling therapy using the Dermapen (Dermapen, Salt Lake City, Utah) and topical therapy with silicone gel (Kelo-cote, Sinclair Pharma, London, England), and their combined effectiveness for the treatment of linear surgical scars, hypertrophic scars, and keloids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were randomly selected and equally divided into 2 groups (A and B), with each group of 10 including 6 patients with keloids and 4 with hypertrophic scars. Treatment assignments were random. In group A, the entire scar was treated by skin needling, with silicone gel applied to half of the scar. Patients in group B were treated with silicone gel on the whole scar, with only half of the scar also treated with skin needling. During follow-up visits, clinical photographs, evaluation of the scars' thickness, skin ultrasound, and modified Vancouver Scar Scale were performed. RESULTS: Group A showed an average improvement of 68% (P < .01) on the half of the scar with the combination treatment (skin needling plus silicone gel) compared with a 52% improvement on the half of the scar that was treated with only skin needling. Group B showed an average improvement of 63% (P < .01) where the combination treatment was performed, compared with 47% improvement on the area treated with only the silicone gel. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the combination of these 2 treatments is safe and effective for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. These modalities achieved favorable results with each patient adhering to the study paramenters.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".