A prospective randomized comparison of functional and cosmetic outcomes of a coronal zigzag incision versus a conventional straight incision pattern for craniotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Wound healing problems after neurosurgical procedures can lead to serious complications and may require complex revision or even reconstructive surgery. Therefore, optimal surgical management is critical to prevent complications. In a recent experimental study in animals, the authors demonstrated the superiority of a zigzag skin incision over a straight incision pattern. In this study, the authors applied these findings to clinical situations of neurosurgical patients with an indication for a coronal skin incision. The aim of this study was to objectively assess the functional and cosmetic outcomes between straight coronal and zigzag incisions in neurosurgical procedures. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial included adult patients undergoing frontal craniotomy for cerebrovascular or tumor pathologies. The study primarily included patients who were not expected to receive adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. The zigzag incision was standardized using a template. A common straight skin incision behind the hairline served as a control. Complication rates, functional (2-point discrimination, width of the wound, Vancouver Scar Scale [VSS], and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale [POSAS]), and cosmetic outcomes were assessed postoperatively and at 3-month follow-up evaluations. Additionally, all patients answered a wound-specific questionnaire and the SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were randomized to the zigzag and 29 to the straight incision groups. Indications for surgery were cerebrovascular in 16 cases and tumors in 41 cases. Risk factors for wound healing were equally distributed in both groups. One patient in the zigzag group with poor postoperative compliance required surgery for secondary wound healing problems. Overall, the width of the scar was significantly smaller (p = 0.001) and local 2-point discrimination better (p = 0.005) in the zigzag group. Scores on the VSS (p = 0.003) and POSAS (p = 0.005) proved to be significantly superior in the zigzag group as well. CONCLUSIONS: A zigzag coronal skin incision pattern leads to significantly superior functional and cosmetic outcome scores. For certain patient groups, these findings may prove to be practice-changing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".