The Use of Dermal Substitute in Deep Burns of Functional/Mobile Anatomic Areas at Acute Phase After Early Excision and Subsequent Skin Autografting: Dermal Substitute Prevents Functional Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the results of dermal substitute implantation after early excision in the acute phase of major burn cases within the scope of efforts to reduce contractions and scar formation in functional anatomic areas (face, neck, axilla, elbow, popliteal). Twelve patients with major burn who were treated in the burn center between September 2017 and September 2018 were included in the study. In these patients, Nevelia® dermal substitute was implanted into 24 functional areas with deep partial or full-thickness burns after surgical debridement of the wound. Autologous split-thickness skin graft was applied to these areas after 14 to 21 days. The patients were followed for 4 to 14 months (mean 6 months). Postoperative scar formation was assessed by the Vancouver Scar Scale at the end of the follow-up period. A simple qualitative staging system was used for aesthetic and functional evaluation. The time from burn injury to dermal substitute implantation was 3 to 21 days. Skin graft take was complete in 22 of 24 regions and partial in one of them, while graft loss developed in one region. In the implantation sites, the Vancouver Scar Scale ranged from 1 to 7. The aesthetic and functional evaluation showed excellent/good results in 21 of 24 anatomic regions, moderate results in 2 regions, and poor results in 1 region. The use of dermal substitute in deep burns of functional/mobile anatomic areas at the acute phase after early excision and subsequent skin autografting has opened a new alternative area in the burn surgery arena to prevent contractures and functional limitations.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".