Deep burn surgery of the whole dorsum of the hand: Composite skin grafting over acellular dermal matrix versus thick split‐thickness skin grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservation and restoration of hand function after burn injuries are challenging yet imperative. This study aimed to assess the curative effect of a composite skin graft over an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and a thick split-thickness skin graft (STSG) for treating deep burns on the hand. Patients who met the inclusion criteria at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University between September 2011 and January 2020 were retrospectively identified from the operative register. We investigated patient characteristics, time from operation to the start of active motion exercise, take rates of skin graft 7 days post-surgery, donor site recovery, complications and days to complete healing. Patients were followed up for 12 months to evaluate scar quality using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and hand function through total active motion (TAM) and the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT). A total of 38 patients (52 hands) who received thin STSG on top of the ADM or thick STSG were included. The location of the donor sites was significantly different between Group A (thick STSG) and Group B (thin STSG + ADM) (p = 0.03). There were no statistical differences in age, gender, underlying disease, cause of burn, burn area, dominant hand, patients with two hands operated on and time from burn to surgery between the two groups (p > 0.05). The time from operation to the start of active motion exercise, take rates of skin graft 7 days post-surgery and days to complete healing were not significantly different between Group A and Group B (p > 0.05). The rate of donor sites requiring skin grafting was lower in Group B than in Group A (22.2% vs. 100%, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in complications between the groups (p = 0.12). Moreover, 12 months postoperatively, the pliability subscore in the VSS was significantly lower in Group A than in Group B (p = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences in vascularity (p = 0.42), pigmentation (p = 0.31) and height subscores (p = 0.13). The TAM and JTHFT results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.22 and 0.06, respectively). The ADM combined with thin STSG is a valuable approach for treating deep and extensive hand burns with low donor site morbidity. It has a good appearance and function in patients with hand burns, especially in patients with limited donor sites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".