<p>A Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Study on Tissue Adhesive for Skin Incision in Total Knee Arthroplasty</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study focusing on the tissue adhesive in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was rare. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic costs of tissue adhesive when acting as the adjunct to standard incision closure in TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2019 to November 2019, we prospectively enrolled the consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA in our institute. The allocation using the tissue adhesive was done after the subcuticular suture in right knee first and another method was applied in the left knee automatically. The patients' demographics, length of stay (LOS), times of dressing changes and incision-related cost, range of motion (ROM), incision-related complications and incision evaluation scores were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in this study and followed at two months after surgery. In the knees of tissue adhesive, the times of dressing change and patient scar assessment scores (PSAS) were significantly less than those standard skin closure (p=0.000; p=0.003). Although there were no significant differences of the delayed discharge, incision-related cost, ROM, incision-related complications and Vancouver scar score (VSS) between two groups, 65.6% (21/32) patients preferred the tissue adhesive and only 15.6% (5/32) patients preferred the standard incision closure. CONCLUSION: Tissue adhesive could effectively reduce postoperative wound drainage and improve patients' satisfaction rate with no difference in medical costs and ROM in TKA. The application of tissue adhesive and subcuticular sutures might be one safe and convenient method of skin closure in TKA. CHINESE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ChiCTR1900025730; Registered 6 September 2019.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".