Early use of CO<sub>2</sub> lasers and silicone gel on surgical scars: Prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Some publications have shown good aesthetic results for scars through the early application of fractional CO 2 lasers on elective surgery scars. The aim of this randomized, double‐blinded clinical trial was to compare the aesthetic quality of the scar from a group of patients submitted to super‐pulsed fractional CO 2 laser applications (10,600 nm fractional CO 2 , set at a density of 20% and an energy of 10 mJ, a scanner of 03 × 03 mm, and a pulse repetition time of 0.3 seconds) in contrast with the other group that used only the silicone gel on the scar after plastic surgery. Method A prospective study was conducted by analyzing 42 patients with recent scars of up to three weeks in patients with a I–IV Fitz‐Patrick skin phototype. The scars were evaluated aesthetically in the second and sixth months by applying the Vancouver scale. Results At 2 months of treatment, the statistical data showed a discrete superiority in the LASER group's treatment, as compared to that of the SILICONE group, in both percentage and significance concerning flexibility ( P = 0.05) and pigmentation ( P = 0.01). Laser group presented better results in the sixth month ( P = 0,03). Conclusion The early use of the fractional CO 2 laser contributed to improving the aesthetic quality of scars from elective surgeries in the second and in the 6th months. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:570–576, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".