Silicone-Based Scar Cream for Post Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty-associated Cicatricial and Hypertrophic Scarring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Silicone cream has been shown to improve the appearance of postoperative scars. Nevertheless, surgeons may incorporate intralesional wound modulators such as a triamcinolone and/or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for scars that do not completely heal well or those that do not completely respond to other treatment options such as silicone cream. This study sought to determine whether a silicone-based topical scar cream that incorporates selective growth factors can help reduce the incidence of postoperative cicatricial and hypertrophic changes in upper eyelid blepharoplasty incisions. METHODS: This is a single-surgeon, retrospective chart review of patients that underwent a cosmetic upper eyelid blepharoplasty. Subjects were divided into two cohorts depending on whether they received postoperative topical scar cream (SKN2017B) twice daily for 3 months versus no topical scar treatment. Using a modified Vancouver Scar Study Scale for treatment criteria, the incidence of focal intralesional injections of triamcinolone and 5-FU to targeted areas of cicatricial and hypertrophic changes was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: 272 eyelids were identified, of those, 132 eyelids received no treatment and 140 were treated with SKN2017B. 43.9% of eyelids that did not receive treatment underwent intralesional injections of triamcinolone and 5-FU, and 22.9% of eyelids treated with SKN2017B underwent intralesional injections of triamcinolone and 5-FU. The difference between the two groups was found to be statistically significant (P less than 0.05). No adverse reactions were reported from either group. CONCLUSION: The use of a topical silicone-based scar cream has been shown to be safe and effective in decreasing the incidence of intralesional injections of triamcinolone and 5-FU for postoperative cicatricial and hypertrophic changes in upper eyelid blepharoplasty incisions. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(5):440-446.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".