Cannula-based versus common needle-based subcision in combination with fractional CO2 laser in the treatment of post-traumatic atrophic facial scars: A clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the presence of many treatment options for management of atrophic post-traumatic scar, it is still a challenging problem. Different modalities have been used and have shown some degree of success in the improvement of scars. Objective To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the subcision technique by two different modalities (cannula based versus common needle) with fractional CO2 laser for the management of post-traumatic atrophic facial scars. Patients and methods This study was performed on 50 patients with post-traumatic facial scar were treated three times at a 4-week interval with a follow-up visit. Each scar were divided into two equal halves; cannula subcision technique was done for an upper and right half, while the lower left half-treated with common needle based one, followed by application of fractional CO 2 laser to whole scar. The effectiveness of these two techniques of subcision was evaluated using Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), along with patient and doctor’s satisfaction measures; in addition to the late adverse effects 3 months postsubcision. Results The study group included 50 patients, their ages ranged from 20 to 60 years old with mean (28.4±8.1). The mean total VSS score improved significantly from 5.65±1.61 to 3.64±1.33 and 4.78±1.34 to 3.16±1.42 with cannula-based subcision and common needle-based one, respectively ( P < 0.001). However, the mean cannula was significantly superior to common needles ( P = 0.001), as regard Vancouver score parameters (pigmentation, pliability, and height), such as the pigmentation, pliability, and height of the mean difference values of Vancouver score (2.1±1.18) and (1.57±1.07) P < 0.05 and a significant difference in Vancouver score parameters, such as the pigmentation, pliability, and height in both methods with fewer adverse effects and more satisfaction by both patient and physician in subcision technique using blunt cannula versus common needle one. Conclusion Cannula-based subcision is more preferred than common needle one in the treatment of post-traumatic atrophic facial scars because it is safer, more practical and with lesser side effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".