Modified Buried Vertical Mattress Suture Versus Buried Intradermal Suture: A Prospective Split-Scar Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The modified buried vertical mattress suture (MBVMS) is believed to provide excellent outcomes by relieving the tension on wound edges. However, clinical data on the topic remain sparse and inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cosmetic results of the MBVMS and the buried intradermal suture (BIS) in chest wounds using a split-scar model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients participated in the study. One randomly selected half of each chest wound was closed with the MBVMS; the other half was closed with the BIS. Immediately, postoperatively, the maximum degree of wound eversion was obtained. After 3 months, the wound complication rates were recorded, and the aesthetic appearance of each scar was evaluated by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), the visual analog scale (VAS), and scar width. RESULTS: The MBVMS yielded a greater mean postoperative eversion height and width (p < .05); lower POSAS, VSS, and VAS scores (p < .05); and a narrower scar width (p < .05) than did the BIS. CONCLUSION: Compared with the BIS, the MBVMS provided significantly increased wound eversion immediately, postoperatively, and improved aesthetic outcomes at the end of the 3-month follow-up period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".