Eficacia de un apósito autoadhesivo de poliuretano para prevenir la formación de cicatrices hipertróficas Efficacy of a polyurethane self-adhesive dressing in preventing hypertrophic scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valoramos la eficacia de un apósito autoadhesivo para prevenir las cicatrices hipertróficas sobre un grupo de pacientes sometidas a cirugía de reducción mamaria. Tras la curación de las heridas, aplicamos en todas las pacientes un protocolo preventivo mediante compresión y apósito adhesivo: 66 pacientes (35,6±10,8 años de edad) utilizaron Trofolastin® reductor de cicatrices como adhesivo (sujetos) y 47 pacientes (38,7±12 años de edad) fueron tratadas con otros adhesivos (controles). En el grupo control, el 23,4 % de los casos presentó cicatrices hipertróficas, mientras que en el grupo de sujetos el porcentaje fue sólo del 9,1 % (p < 0,05). Por otra parte, 27 casos del grupo control (56,5 %) tuvieron una puntuación igual o superior a 4 en la escala de Vancouver, frente a sólo 6 casos (9,1 %) en el grupo de sujetos (p < 0,0001). Concluímos que el uso profiláctico de Trofolastin® reductor de cicatrices, una vez finalizado el proceso de curación de la herida, disminuye significativamente el riesgo de cicatrización hipertrófica (riesgo relativo 6,32 [95 % IC 2,83-14,09], según la prueba exacta de Fisher). Our goal is to evaluate the efficacy of a polyurethane self-adhesive dressing in preventing hypertrophic scars in a group of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery. After the initial wound healing period, all patients were submitted to the preventive procedure with compression and adhesive dressing: 66 patients (35.6±10.8 years old) used Trofolastin® reduction scar as adhesive (subjects) and 47 patients (38.7±12 years old) were treated with other adhesives (controls). In the control group, 23.4 % of patients presented hypertrophic scars, whereas this percentage was only 9.1 % in subjects (p < 0.05). Moreover, 27 patients of the control group (56.5 %) presented scars with a Vancouver score equal or higher than 4 in contrast with only 6 cases (9.1 %) in the group of subjects (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, the prophylactic use of Trofolastin® reduction scar, once the initial wound healing period is complete, significantly reduces the risk of hypertrophic scars (relative risk 6.32 [95 % CI 2.83-14.09], according the Fisher's exact test).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".