Surgical Management of Large Periorbital Cutaneous Defects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to repair large periorbital cutaneous defects by an innovative technique called PEPSI (periorbital elevation and positioning with secret incisions) technique with functional and aesthetic outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, unilateral periorbital cutaneous defects in 15 patients were repaired by the PEPSI technique. The ages of patients ranged from 3 to 46 years (average, 19 years). The outcome evaluations included scars (Vancouver Scar Scale and visual analog scale score), function and aesthetic appearance of eyelids, and patient satisfaction. The repair size was measured by the maximum advancement distance of skin flap during operation. RESULTS: All patients achieved an effective repair with a mean follow-up of 18.3 months. Except one with a small (approximately 0.3 cm) necrosis, all patients healed with no complication. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale and visual analog scale scores were 2.1 ± 1.7 and 8.5 ± 1.2, respectively. Ideal cosmetic and functional outcomes were achieved in 14 patients (93.3%). All patients achieved complete satisfaction except 1 patient with partial satisfaction. The mean maximum advancement distance of skin flap was 20.2 mm (range, 8-50 mm). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the PEPSI technique is an effective method to repair large periorbital cutaneous defects with acceptable functional and aesthetic outcomes.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it