MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280569000 · doi:10.1177/20595131221098531

Concomitant therapy of surgical shave excision and intralesional injections for ear keloids: Early results from a retrospective cohort study

2022· article· en· W4280569000 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Tran, Shantel Dj Lultschik, Jessica SS Ho, Sheetal Sapra, Kevin Dong, Klaudija Gusic

Bibliographic record

VenueScars Burns & Healing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cosmetic and Laser Surgery
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriamcinolone acetonideSurgeryProspective cohort studyPatient satisfactionKeloidRetrospective cohort studyOutpatient clinicConcomitantInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Keloids are hypertrophic scars that commonly arise in the ear region. The authors' objectives were to (1) evaluate effectiveness of surgical shave excision followed by intralesional triamcinolone acetonide and onabotulinumtoxinA injections; and (2) evaluate safety and patient satisfaction. Methods and Materials: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients who received treatment of extralesional surgical shave excision followed by intralesional triamcinolone acetonide and onabotulinumtoxinA injections to treat ear keloids at a single outpatient dermatology clinic. A prospective patient questionnaire was administered to the same patient population to collect recurrence and patient satisfaction. Results: A total of 45 patients were included, consisting of 84.4% females (n = 38) and 15.6% males (n = 7) with a mean age of 25.5 years. Through retrospective chart review, early recurrence was seen in 6.7% of patients (n = 3), and via the prospective patient questionnaire, 11.1% of patients noted early keloid recurrence (n = 5). Of the patients who expressed their level of satisfaction in-clinic, 96.0% (n = 24) reported being satisfied or very satisfied and 4.0% (n = 1) were dissatisfied. Satisfaction was also assessed through the prospective patient questionnaire; of those who consented to the questionnaire, 100.0% (n = 24) were satisfied or very satisfied. Only 20.0% (n = 9) of all patients reported experiencing side effects, consisting of pruritus (11.1%; n = 5), tenderness (4.4%; n = 2), pain (2.2%; n = 1), and mild atrophy (2.2%; n = 1). Conclusion: 3 retrospective cohort study. Lay Summary: Keloids are a type of raised scar, which can be painful and itchy for patients. Keloids can occur on various part of the body, including on the ear. They are challenging to treat and tend to come back. There are many treatment options, however, there is not one universal best treatment for keloids on the ear. We hoped to discover if shave excision followed by intralesional triamcinolone acetonide and onabotulinumtoxinA injections is effective at treating keloids on the ear. In order to answer this we completed a chart review of clinic patients, who have already completed the following combination treatment for keloids on the ear. The keloids were treated first by physically removing the bulk of the keloid with a scalpel, which is called shave excision. After the removal, triamcinolone acetonide and onabotulinumtoxinA were injected directly into the keloid. The rate of patient satisfaction and the rate of the keloid returning were collected during in-clinic visits and an optional post-clinic patient questionnaire. The treatment effectiveness and side effects experienced were reported during in-clinic visits. This indicated that with the low rate of side effects, high patient satisfaction, and low rate of keloid return, this treatment combination should be considered as an option for keloids on the ear. However, since this review was completed at one clinic with a small population of patients, it is not fully known if this treatment combination will work for all patients.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScars Burns & HealingSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207