Radiofrequency versus scalpel incision for upper blepharoplasty: a clinicopathologic and photo documentation comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The aim of this study is to compare scar appearance and the histopathological aspects of inflammatory response induced by the use of radiofrequency [RF] incision and a cold-blade scalpel incision in upper blepharoplasty surgery. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective, double-blind study that recruited 10 Caucasian patients from Oculoplastic Sector of Ophthalmological Center of Minas Gerais (Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil) aged 60–70 years, Fitzpatrick skin types 3 and 4, with upper eyelid dermatochalasis and indication for upper blepharoplasty. These patients underwent upper blepharoplasty using RF incision in one eyelid (10 eyelids in total) and cold-blade incision in the contralateral eyelid (10 eyelids in total). The two techniques were compared for clinical scar appearance and histopathology of the excised tissue materials (i.e., upper eyelid skin). To evaluate clinical scar appearance, we employed two distinct methods: photo-documentation and statistical analysis of the assessment performed by two masked observers (oculoplastic specialists) that examined all patients during all the follow-up based on Vancouver scar scale criteria, which includes attributes related to scar’s vascularization, thickness, pigmentation, and elasticity. Follow-up was performed on days 30, 60, and 180 after surgery. After the follow-up period, the collected data were statistically analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: The eyelids incised with a scalpel displayed thicker scars (hypertrophic scars), which differed significantly only in the first month after surgery (p = 0.022). The two surgical techniques did not show statistically significant difference in vascularity, elasticity, or pigmentation of the scar during the follow up period (sixth postoperative month). Regarding the histopathological evaluation, the excised skin fragments exhibited the same patterns, except the cautery effect that was observed at the edges of the skin excised with RF, which showed 0.20–0.30-mm thick thermal damage. Conclusion: The two techniques did not show statistically significant difference in terms of scar appearance after the sixth postoperative month.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".