The W-Plasty Serial Excision Method for Treating Medium Congenital Melanocytic Nevi: A Retrospective Analytical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serial excision remains the most commonly used surgical procedure for treating congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN). It is critical to remove as much of the lesion as possible with each procedure to reduce the number of procedures and to shorten the treatment duration. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of W-plasty serial excision for the repair of postoperative CMN defects. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with medium CMN was conducted from April 2018 to March 2022. Treatment options were divided into elliptical serial excision (10 cases) and W-plasty serial excision (10 cases). RESULTS: Follow-up occurred over 6 months. The number of elliptical excision procedures was 2 to 4 (mean 2.9). The scar-to-lesion length ratio was 1.5 to 2.0 (mean 1.7). The mean Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score was 5.40 ± 0.42. The number of W-plasty excision procedures was 2 to 3 (mean 2.2). The scar-to-lesion length ratio was 1.2 to 1.5 (mean 1.4). The mean VSS score was 2.70 ± 0.26. W-plasty excision was superior to elliptical excision regarding the number of procedures and the effect on postoperative scars. CONCLUSION: W-plasty serial excision can be considered a suitable option for the excision of medium CMN, leading to excellent results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".