Preventive Effect of Hydrocolloid Dressings on Hypertrophic Scarring of Post-Cesarean Section Wounds: A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prophylactic effect of hydrocolloid dressings on hypertrophic scarring in post-cesarean section wounds. METHODS: Patients who underwent cesarean section (C/S) at the authors' hospital and provided informed consent to participate were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group commenced applying hydrocolloid dressings to the wound on postoperative day 7 or 8 and continued with weekly dressing changes for 6 months. The control group refrained from any dressing application but was followed up. In each group, the condition of the wound was evaluated 6 and 12 months postoperatively using the Japan Scar Workshop Scar Scale 2015, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale version 2.0, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: During this period, 135 patients underwent C/S at the authors' institution, and 47 (23 in the intervention group and 24 in the control group) were included in the analysis. In all assessment methods, the intervention group scored lower than the control group at 6 and 12 months after C/S. Twelve months after C/S, hypertrophic scarring (Japan Scar Workshop Scar Scale 2015 score of 6-15) was found in 14 of the 47 (29.8%) patients: 11 of 24 (45.8%) in the control group and 3 of 23 (13.0%) in the intervention group. The intervention's relative risk was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.417-0.930). The risk factor for hypertrophic scarring was midline vertical incision, with an odds ratio of 20.53 (95% CI, 4.18-100.92). CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals that the application of hydrocolloid dressings to wounds reduces the risk of hypertrophic scarring after C/S.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".