Use of the Microdebrider in the Surgical Management of Rhinophyma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhinophyma is a disfiguring end-stage manifestation of acne rosacea. It is characterized by a painless hyperplasia of the sebaceous glands and connective tissues of the nose. Numerous surgical modalities—including scalpel surgery, dermabrasion, CO 2 laser ablation, and electrocautery—have been reported with varying results. We describe our experience with using a microdebrider to treat 2 patients—a 65-year-old man and a 74-year-old man—who presented with rhinophyma. The instrument we used was the Medtronic Straight-shot M4 Microdebrider. Using a low revolution speed, we easily excised the bulky superficial tissue. At higher revolution speeds with the use of a small shaver tip, we were able to achieve delicate contouring of the nasal tip and ala without causing scarring. Postoperatively, both patients exhibited an excellent cosmetic outcome and expressed a high degree of patient satisfaction. We conclude that the microdebrider is an excellent surgical tool for treating rhinophyma lesions. Its ease of use and its availability at most surgical centers makes it a favorable surgical option.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".