MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811056332 · doi:10.3889/oamjms.2018.250

Post-Surgical Repair of Cleft Scar Using Fractional CO2 Laser

2018· article· en· W2811056332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aida M. Mossaad, Amr M Kotb, Hatem Al Ahmady

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScarsVascularityAblative caseVisual analogue scaleSurgeryPatient satisfactionCarbon dioxide laserLaser surgeryLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative scarring is a common cause of patients dissatisfaction. Several modalities have been developed to overcome such a problem following surgical repair. Despite precise surgical technique, still, some scars would remain over the time, mostly due to the weak formation or inadequately replaced collagen fibres in the underneath dermis especially those following unilateral or bilateral cleft lip repair surgery.AIM: of this study is to evaluate whether a 10,600 nm fractional ablative carbon dioxide (CO2) used early during the healing period would result in better postoperative scars.METHODS: In the present study six patients complained from cleft lip scars resulting from lip revision surgery. Each patient had six fractional ablative CO2 laser sessions for treatment along six months to obtain a complete collagen cycle. Vancouver Scar Scale VSS was used as a method of evaluation of the scar using 4 points scale evaluating vascularity, pliability, thickness & colour of the skin and Visual Analogue Scale VAS from (0-10) was used to assess the severity of pain as well as a survey questionnaire for the rate of patient’s satisfaction. Also, digital clinical photos assessment before&after were compared.RESULTS: Patients expressed a significantly greater degree of satisfaction with the treatment using a subjective 4-point scale. All patients observed dramatic improvement in their lip scars after FCO2 laser sessions following their surgeries with the better psychological state. The assessment was done by clinical observation according to VSS before (9.17 ± 2.2) while after (3.33 ± 1.9) with a highly significant P value <0.001 and VAS for the rate of pain & satisfaction that ranged from (8.0 ± 0.9) as well as series of photos taken before and after the procedure. No long-term complications were noted however patients complained of annoying pain during the session as well as crust formation that lasted up to 5 days after surgery. In the present study, we introduce the effectiveness of ablative fractional 10,600 nm CO2 laser for treatment of postoperative cleft lip scar after secondary surgical cleft repair rather than ablative CO2 due to its reported complications such as postoperative infection, erythema and pigmentary changes along with prolonged downtime healing. In the current study, we chose early laser treatment within the first six months before complete collagen organisation which will be easier to manage the older scars. Patients mostly complained about the pain during the session as well as dark-coloured crust formation post session that stayed from 3-5 days however they all observed a massive improvement of their scars following treatment protocol.CONCLUSION: Facial wounds sutured in layers heal in a good manner. Patients prefer early treatment with a fractional CO2 ablative laser for postoperative surgical scars. The use of a CO2 fractional laser is safe and effective also causes high patients satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Macedonian Journal of Medical SciencesSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207