Botulinum Toxin for a Better Scar in Cleft Lip Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An unsightly scar following cleft repair can undo the good work of even an experienced surgeon. A functioning orbicularis oris muscle beneath the lip scar maintains a zone of dynamic tension resulting in a stretched scar. Botulinum toxin type A (BTA) can be used to create a temporary paralysis of the orbicularis muscle during the healing phase. This may lead to better scar formation after a cleft lip repair. METHOD: The present prospective randomized control trial enrolled 28 infants with unilateral cleft lip undergoing primary lip repair. They were randomized to receive injection of either BTA (botox group) or normal saline (control group) intraoperatively into adjacent orbicularis oris muscle immediately after completion of cleft lip repair. Blinded experts reassessed the scar after 6 months. Objective assessment was undertaken employing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), and photographic scar width measurements. RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were able to complete a follow-up duration of 6 months. Children in the BTA (Botox Group) had a statistically significantly better VAS score and lesser scar width compared to the control group. However, the difference in the VSS score between both groups was not statistically significant. On comparing patients with cleft lip alone with cleft lip and palate, no statistically significant difference was found in VAS, VSS, and scar width. There were no complications associated with the use of botulinum toxin A. CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin type A injection is a safe and effective addition to improve scar appearance following cleft lip repair. There was improvement in appearance of the scar in terms of width, but no improvement was seen in the scar pigmentation. The scar outcome is independent of cleft lip classification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".