Comparison of long-term abdominal scarring after DIEP flap reconstruction: conventional dermal sutures versus INSORB dermal staples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The importance of adequate wound closure in plastic surgery cannot be overstated. With the goals of shortening the operative time and improving outcomes, various methods and devices have been introduced to enhance the speed and quality of wound closure. To simplify dermal closure with favorable outcomes, several studies have compared results between the INSORB dermal stapler and conventional dermal sutures. We hypothesized that the dermal stapler would yield satisfactory scar formation without increasing complication rates over the long term.Methods This retrospective study included patients who had undergone breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap between October 2019 and May 2020 at a single center. Postoperative photographs of the patients’ abdominal scars were assessed at a minimum of 248 days by three blinded attending plastic surgeons using the Vancouver Scar Scale.Results A total of 108 patients who underwent DIEP-free flap reconstruction after mastectomy were included in this study. Among them, 68 patients (group 1) underwent dermal closure with the INSORB dermal stapler, while 40 patients (group 2) underwent conventional dermal sutures. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vascularity, pigmentation, pliability, scar height, or overall scar assessment. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups.Conclusions The INSORB dermal stapler is a valuable tool that can reduce operative time while delivering satisfactory outcomes. When used appropriately with proper training, it can mitigate perioperative complications and alleviate the surgical burden for the surgeon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".