Intense pulsed light vs silicone gel sheet in the management of hypertrophic scars: an interventional comparative trial in the Indian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Hypertrophic scars are abnormal scars that are a source of great functional, psychological and financial burden to the patient. Currently available treatment modalities are either very cumbersome to use or have not provided very satisfactory results. Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy for the management of hypertrophic scars has been recently introduced. However, most of the studies available are from the Western population. In this trial, we aim to study the effect of IPL on the South Indian population with darker skin and compare it with an existing treatment modality (silicone gel sheet). Materials and Methods: This trial was an interventional clinical trial conducted from September 2015 to March 2017 on 28 patients with 65 hypertrophic scars. Each scar was divided into 2 equal parts (4.6 x 1 cm2). One half of the scar was treated to 4 sessions of 29J/cm2 of IPL at 3 weekly intervals. A silicone gel sheet (SGS) was applied over the other half and changed at 3 weekly intervals. The Vancouver scar scale was used to grade both halves of the scar before treatment, at each visit and 3 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Scars treated with IPL showed a significant reduction in the pliability (p=0.002) and hyperpigmentation (p=0.000) as compared to scars treated with SGS. Though the percentage reduction in the height of the scar was more in the IPL group (15.4% as compared to 4.6%in the SGS group), the result was not statistically significant (p<0.065). As most scars in our study showed normal vascularity at the beginning, the percentage reduction in vascularity between both groups was the same (p<0.597). The reduction in the median VSS score was more in the IPL group compared to SGS group (p=0.00). Conclusion: IPL therapy offers a safe and effective means of hypertrophic scar treatment, especially on large scars where other treatment modalities may not be feasible. Minimal side effects that occur can be prevented with proper pre, intra and post procedure cooling.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".