Early Compression Therapy for Deep Skin Defects: A New Treatment Option to Prevent Hypertrophic Scars or Contractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Conservative treatment of deep dermal or full-thickness skin defects often results in hypertrophic scars or contractures; thus, compressive therapy has been used after wound closure to prevent or treat scar deformities. However, wound contraction begins in the early proliferative phase and peaks after 2 weeks. We therefore attempted early compression therapy as a means of conservative treatment of deep-skin defects and evaluated its clinical outcomes. Methods: In 21 cases of deep skin defects (19 patients), early compressive therapy was started the second week after injury. Saline-moistened gauze or foam dressings were placed on open wounds, and foam dressings or silastic plates were used after epithelialization. The compression materials included elastic bandages, adhesive tapes, or garments. The final scars were assessed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and satisfaction degree.Results: Defect size ranged from 1.4×0.7 to 5×5 cm. The duration of compression was 4 to 12 months. The follow-up periods were 4 to 61 months. Mild scar hypertrophy or contracture occurred in 15 cases and subsided after application of topical corticosteroid or triamcinolone injection. The final scar shapes were linear (n=12), geographic (n=5), and oval (n=4). The mean VSS score was 2.3. The degrees of satisfaction were excellent (61.9%) and good (23.8%). In most cases, aesthetically and functionally satisfactory outcomes without pathologic scars were demonstrated with minimal scar size, high scar quality, and high satisfaction.Conclusion: Early compression therapy might be a good option to prevent pathologic scars in the conservative treatment of deep skin defects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".