Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Complications of the Arthroscopic Cartilage Shaving Procedure for Secondary Osmidrosis Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Axillary osmidrosis is a common disease with negative psychosocial impact on patients. Further, many treatment modalities are not sufficient and result in recurrence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using a cartilage shaver in patients with recurrent osmidrosis to remove tightly attached apocrine glands and subdermal scars. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 24 patients with secondary axillary osmidrosis who underwent cartilage shaving surgery between January 2013 and May 2022. We analyzed the incidence of complications, including seroma, infection, pigmentation, wound dehiscence, skin necrosis, scarring, shoulder movement limitation, comedones/sebaceous cysts, and nerve injury. Clinical effectiveness was also evaluated. RESULTS: Excellent or good efficacy with improved malodor was achieved in 24 patients (47 axillae [100%]). Complications were observed in 16 (36.17%) axillae, including hematomas (n = 2), pigmentation (n = 7), skin necrosis (n = 3), and comedones/sebaceous cysts (n = 4); one patient (2.13%) required local debridement. Mean Vancouver Scar Scale scores were markedly low (5.41 to 4.67). Scar tissue did not interfere with the shaving surgery, allowing for successful removal of the apocrine glands. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary osmidrosis treatment using a cartilage shaver system yielded satisfactory and better scar results than the patients' previous treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".