Perbandingan Penyembuhan Luka Insisi Menggunakan Pisau Bedah dan Pisau Elektrokauter Dinilai dengan Vancouver scar score pada Operasi Luka Bersih
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Skin incision is usually performed by using a scalpel. It is assumed that electrocautery knife, a more recent alternative, can increase the risk of infection, impair healing, and result in poor cosmetic scar. This study was aimed to compare the healing process of incision wounds performed by using sclapels and electrocautery knives assessed with Vancouver Scar Score (VSS) at three months after operation. This was an experimental study. Subjects were 17 male patients, aged 18-55 years old, with elective operation (categorized as clean wound operation) from March through June 2016 at Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Hospital Manado. Each incision was performed with a scalpel first (Group A) and continued with an electrocautery knife (Group B). After 3 months of operation, the wound scars were assessed with VSS. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test showed no significant difference between the VSS of the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no difference in wound healing of incised wounds performed by using scalpels and by using electrocautery knives.Keywords: VSS, electrocautery, wound healing, scarAbstrak: Insisi kulit biasanya dilakukan dengan menggunakan pisau bedah. Peralatan elektrokauter merupakan alternatif baru yang dianggap meningkatkan risiko infeksi, memperlambat penyembuhan, dengan hasil secara kosmetik yang buruk. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan proses penyembuhan dari luka insisi menggunakan pisau bedah dan pisau elektrokauter yang dinilai dengan Vancouver Scar Score (VSS) pada operasi dengan luka bersih. Jenis penelitian ialah eksperimental. Penelitian dilakukan selama periode Maret 2016 s/d Juni 2016 pada 17 orang pasien berjenis kelamin laki-laki, berusia 18-55 tahun yang memerlukan operasi elektif di RSUP Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou Manado dan dikategorikan operasi dengan luka bersih. Setiap insisi selalu dilakukan terlebih dahulu dengan pisau bedah (kelompok A) dan sisanya dilakukan dengan pisau elektrokauter (kelompok B), kemudian luka dinilai dengan VSS setelah 3 bulan kemudian. Hasil uji Wilcoxon signed ranks terhadap hasil VSS saat 3 bulan setelah operasi memperlihatkan tidak terdapat perbedaan bermakna antara hasil perlakuan A dan B (P > 0,05). Simpulan: Tidak terdapat perbedaan dalam penyembuhan dari kedua bagian luka insisi yang menggunakan pisau bedah dan pisau elektrokauter pada operasi dengan luka bersih.Kata kunci: VSS, elektrokauter, penyembuhan luka, jaringan parut
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.011 | 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".