MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294840124 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000009629

Polylactic Acid Membrane Improves Outcome of Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Prospective, Comparative, Randomized Study

2022· article· en· W4294840124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Moellhoff, Maria Lettner, Konstantin Frank, Riccardo E. Giunta, Denis Ehrl

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolylactic acidMedicineInterquartile rangePolyurethaneSplit thickness skin graftMembraneSurgeryComposite materialMaterials sciencePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Polyurethane film dressings are commonly applied for coverage of split-thickness skin graft donor sites, although previous studies have suggested reduced morbidity using a polylactic acid membrane. To further investigate the optimal treatment approach, the authors compared outcomes of donor sites in patients receiving either polylactic acid membrane or polyurethane film. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial allocated patients requiring split-thickness skin grafting to receive either polylactic acid membrane or polyurethane film at the donor site. The primary endpoint was difference in donor-site scar appearance between groups 3 months postoperatively, using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Secondary endpoints included pain, number of and time required for wound dressing changes, and costs related to the wound dressing. RESULTS: Thirty patients were allocated to each group. The median Vancouver Scar Scale score was lower for patients receiving polylactic acid membrane [polyurethane film, 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 4); polylactic acid membrane, 2 (interquartile range, 1 to 3); p = 0.049]. Pain during change of wound dressing (polyurethane film, 2.0 ± 0.2; polylactic acid membrane, 0.5 ± 0.2; p < 0.001) and mobilization (polyurethane film, 0.8 ± 0.2; polylactic acid membrane, 0.3 ± 0.1; p = 0.032) were reduced in the polylactic acid membrane group. Patients with polylactic acid membrane required fewer dressing changes per day of hospital stay (polyurethane film, 0.44 ± 0.06; polylactic acid membrane, 0.28 ± 0.02; p = 0.015). Mean time for wound dressing changes per patient was higher in the polyurethane film group (polyurethane film, 74.50 ± 5.72 minutes; polylactic acid membrane, 21.43 ± 2.61 minutes; p < 0.001). Costs were higher in the polylactic acid membrane group (polyurethane film, €67.83 ± €5.56; polylactic acid membrane, €162.79 ± €21.76; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Polylactic acid membrane improves outcome of split-thickness skin grafting donor sites; however, higher treatment costs must be taken into consideration. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207