Superiority of occipital donor sites for split‐thickness skin grafting in dermatosurgery: Results of a prospective randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Split-thickness skin grafts are commonly used in dermatosurgery. For occipital donor sites, retrospective studies have shown good results with respect to graft take and healing rates. Nevertheless, the majority of grafts in dermatosurgery are harvested from the thigh. To date, there has been no prospective randomized controlled study comparing occipital versus femoral donor sites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following micrographically controlled R0 tumor resection, 108 patients were randomized prior to undergoing split-thickness skin grafting (donor site: occiput vs. thigh). Follow-up examinations were carried out on day 3, 5, 7, and 14, as well as one month and three months after surgery. Documented data included graft take rates, re-epithelialization rates at the donor site, pain, cosmetic outcome, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), and complications. RESULTS: Occipital donor sites showed significantly faster reepithelization, less pain, fewer complications, a better cosmetic outcome, and better results on the VSS. With regard to graft take rates, grafts harvested from the occiput were significantly superior on days 3 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled trial showing a significant superiority of occipital compared to femoral donor sites regarding re-epithelialization, pain, cosmetic outcome and the Vancouver Scar Scale.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".