The Comparison of the Scar of Collar Incision in Thyroidectomy Surgery Using Under- or Over-Platysma Flap with or without Muscle Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The main treatment for thyroid cancer surgery is total thyroidectomy based on neck incision, and then, detachment of platysma flap; but this incision causes a long scar that can affect patients' satisfaction and impair their quality of life. In this study, we aimed to compare the scar of collar incision in thyroidectomy surgery using under- or over-platysma flap with or without muscle repair. Methods: In this clinical trial study, 160 patients selected in Alzahra and Imam Reza hospitals, Isfahan, Iran, during 2017-2018, were divided into four groups using randomized blocks method. In groups A and B, platysma flap was used; in groups C and D, subcutaneous flap was used on the platysma; in groups A and C, platysma muscle was repaired; and in groups B and D, platysma muscle was not repaired. Then, these four groups were followed up according to Vancouver standard score, and patient satisfaction with the beauty of the scar was assessed after 6 months. Findings: Vancouver score with subcutaneous flap did not show a significant difference, as a result of platysma flap; but platysma repair showed significant difference. We found that at the end of the study, the levels of patient satisfaction (through five Likert rankings) were significantly correlated with their Vancouver scores. Conclusion: Both flaps are effective, but it is better to repair platysma muscle for patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".