[Different skin-stretching devices for the treatment of skin and soft tissue defects].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical effects of tension-relief system(TRS) and self-made skin-stretching devices in treating skin and soft tissue defects caused by trauma. METHODS: Totally 41 patients with skin and soft tissue defects caused by trauma treated by skin-stretching devices were retrospectively analyzed from June 2015 to October 2016, including 28 males and 13 females, aged from 22 to 64 years old with an average of(43.2±10.4) years old. The patients were divided into two groups according to therapeutic methods, 18 patients were treated by TRS, including 11 males and 7 females, aged from 22 to 61 years old with an average of (41.7±9.5) years old; 5 patients injured on the upper limb, 11 patients on lower limb and 2 patients on the back; the area of defect ranged from 42 to 160 cm² with an average of(78.6±17.4) cm². Twenty-three patients were treated by self-made skin stretching device, included 17 males and 6 females, aged from 25 to 64 years old with an average of (44.4±12.7) years old; 6 patients injured on the upper limb, 13 patients on lower limb and 4 patients on the back; the area of defect ranged from 54 to 175 cm² with an average of(75.2±14.3) cm². Primary closure at stage I, blood loss, operation time, healing time of wound, complications between two groups were compared, VAS score was used to evaluate pain relief, vancouver scar scale(VSS) was used to assess recover of postoperative scars. RESULTS: >0.05). In TRS group, 16 patients' injury were closured directly, wound healing time of 16 patients were over 3 about weeks, VAS score was 3.9±1.1, VSS score was 3.5±1.2, and 1 patient occurred complication; In self-made skin stretch group, 12 patients' injury were closured directly, wound healing time of 9 patients were over 3 about weeks, VAS score was 4.8±1.4, VSS score was 5.3±1.6, and 9 patients occurred complication; there were no statistical differences between two groups in these items. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with self-made skin stretch, TRS has advantages of good effect of wound, minimal trauma, short healing time, less pain, good outlook, and less complication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".