Serial Casting as an Effective Method for Burn Scar Contracture Rehabilitation: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines and protocols for orthoses in burn scar contracture rehabilitation are limited. The current study aims to determine the optimal frequency of casting, potentially facilitating the development of a serial casting protocol. Previous literature supporting casting has low generalizability due to methodology limitations. Seven patients with burn scar contracted joints, who did not respond to traditional therapy, were recruited in this study. Patients were serially casted once, three times, or five times a week. Joint range of motion was maximized with stretching and exercise techniques before every new cast application. Across all patients, active range of motion increased from 65.8 ± 27.8° to 108.1 ± 23.3° with casting; or from 57.8 ± 16.2% to 96.7 ± 2.9% of normal. Similarly, scars improved from 9.5 ± 1.5 to 4.9 ± 1.4 on the Modified Vancouver Scar Scale score. This therapeutic effect was achieved within an average of 8.5 ± 3.7 d and 4.0 ± 2.2 new cast applications. Given the study findings, the procedures outlined could be used to develop a standardized serial casting protocol for burn scar contracture rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".