MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210411927 · doi:10.1159/000521573

Outcome Comparison of Different Reconstructive Approaches for Axillary Defects Secondary to Radical Excision of Hidradenitis Suppurativa

2022· article· en· W4210411927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vlad Tereshenko, Riccardo Schweizer, Matthias Waldner, Bong‐Sung Kim, Pietro Giovanoli, Holger J. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHidradenitis suppurativaSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyScarsReconstructive surgeryAxillaDiseaseBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radical excision of debilitating hidradenitis suppurativa lesions is the only curative approach in the advanced stages of the disease. Different concepts for axillary reconstruction do exist, but data on their clinical outcome are scarce. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of two reconstructive methods (posterior arm flap vs. vacuum-assisted closure [VAC] + split-thickness skin graft [STSG]) for axillary defects in patients with severe axillary hidradenitis suppurativa treated at the University Hospital Zurich between 2005 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients (mean age 36 ± 10 years, mean BMI 29 ± 5 kg/m2, Hurley stage II-III) with 67 operated axillae were stratified according to their type of reconstruction. Median operation time in the flap group was 144 min (IQR 114-207) (cumulative 181 min [IQR 124-300]) and 50 min (IQR 40-81) in the VAC + STSG group (cumulative 151 min [IQR 94-194], p < 0.01; p = 0.20 [cumulative time]). The cumulative length of stay was 6 ± 3 days in the flap group and 14 ± 7 days in the VAC + STSG group (p < 0.01). Time to complete wound healing was 27 days (IQR 20-49) in the flap group and 62 days (IQR 41-75) in the VAC + STSG group (p < 0.01). Vancouver Scar Scale score was 6 (IQR 4-9) in the flap group and 11 (IQR 9-12) in the VAC + STSG group (p < 0.01). Protective sensory recovery was most satisfactory in the flap group (p < 0.01). Forty-four percent of patients of the VAC + STSG group demonstrated functional impairment of arm abduction. Time to return to work was less in group A with 42 days (IQR 27-57) needed as compared to group B with 48 days (IQR 34-55) needed (p = 0.32). The average cost saving was 25% higher for the flap group than for the VAC + STSG group. CONCLUSION: Despite an increased operation time, axillary reconstruction by the posterior arm flap yields a reduced length of stay, less time to complete wound healing along with restoration of a protective sensibility, and less axillary scarring avoiding functional deficits - eventually allowing earlier return to work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207