Comparative Study between Fat Injection and Platelet Rich Plasma in Post Burn Facial Scar: Clinical and Histological Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aim: There is no widely approved treatmentprocedure for post-burn scars, even though many therapyapproaches have been promoted. Many previous studiesseparately evaluated fat injection and platelet rich plasma intreatment of post-burn scar. This study aimed to compare efficacyof both fat injection and platelet rich plasma in improvingoutcome of post burn facial scar.Patients and Methods: In the current study a total of 60patients with post-burn facial scar were enrolled. Those patientswere randomly subdivided into either fat injection group < br />(n=30) or platelet rich plasma group (PRP) (n=30). Baselinecharacteristics were recorded in addition to Vancouver score(VS) used to assess the scar and histological evaluation.Results: Most patients were female with no significantdifferences among both groups regarding different baselinedata and scar characteristics. There were no significant differencesamong the groups regarding baseline Vancouver score(VS) and epidermal thickness, but the fat injection group hadsignificantly lower VS (3.67±1.83 vs 3.87±1.33; p < 0.001) andhigher epidermal thickness (362.20±92.73 vs. 255.40±90.00(um); p < 0.001) during follow-up. There were only two (6.7percent) cases in the PRP group & four (13.3%) cases in thefat injection group developed conservatively relieved edema.Conclusion: The autologous fat injection was effective andsafe technique in improving the outcome of post-burn facialscar as evaluated by Vancouver score and epidermal thickness.It’s recommended to perform such study on large number ofpatients in multiple centers with longer duration of follow-up < br />to confirm such findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".