Two-stage skin grafting using a basic fibroblast growth factor-impregnated artificial dermis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For traditional artificial dermises, a waiting period of approximately three weeks is required after the first implantation before they are adequately vascularized. The objective of this retrospective case series was to investigate whether full-thickness skin defects, requiring surgical reconstruction, could be successfully treated by implantation of a basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF)-impregnated artificial dermis and secondary skin grafting with a shorter waiting period. Between January 2019 and January 2021, 19 skin defects in 14 patients (7 male and 7 female) were treated with two-stage skin grafting using bFGF-impregnated collagen-gelatin sponge (CGS). All of them were included in this case series, and the waiting period for skin grafting, success rate of skin grafting, infection during the waiting period, and scar quality 6-12 months postoperatively were retrospectively investigated. As a result, all skin grafting surgeries were successfully performed with a waiting period of 13.3 ± 4.3 days. Infection during the waiting period was observed in three lesions (15.8%); however, all infections were controllable. Postoperative scar quality was acceptable (Vancouver Scar Scale score range, 1-8). In conclusion, compared to traditional artificial dermises, bFGF-impregnated CGSs have the potential to shorten the waiting period without decreasing the success rate of skin grafting. Further studies are required to confirm this finding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".