An intra‐individual surgical wound comparison shows that octenidine‐based hydrogel wound dressing ameliorates scar appearance following abdominoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic scar formation because of surgical procedures is associated with higher levels of pain, a lower quality of life, and poor cosmetic outcome and requires more resources in follow-up management. An octenidine-based hydrogel has been shown to modulate immunological function in an in vitro wound model, suggesting an improved scar formation. In this prospective, randomised, observer-blinded, and intra-patient-controlled study, 45 patients who underwent abdominoplasty or mastectomy with transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) flap reconstruction were given both a standard postoperative wound dressing on one wound side and an octenidine-based hydrogel with transparent film dressing, covered with standard postoperative dressing on the other side. Four instances of hypertrophia were reported in the gel side versus 12 in the standard dressing side. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores taken during postoperative dressing changes showed reduced scores on the gel side at all time points. Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores showed improvement in the gel side at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Skin distensibility measured using a cutometer showed significantly improved measures in gel-treated wounds, similar to measures of healthy skin. Trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), measured using a tewameter, showed improved values on the gel side soon after surgery, with both the control and the gel side normalising after approximately 6 months. The octenidine-based wound dressing demonstrates improved wound healing associated with a lower incidence of hypertrophic scar formation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".