Long-Term Functional Outcomes Following Enzymatic Debridement of Deep Hand Burns Using Nexobrid®: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For years, surgical debridement with autografting has been considered the standard of care in the treatment of severe burns of the hand. However, in recent years, enzymatic debridement has increasingly been reported as a good alternative, especially for burns of the hand, as it selectively preserves viable tissue. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term function of the hand after enzymatic debridement in deep dermal burns. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted as well as measurements of subjective and objective outcome measures through physical examination and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores. Results: A total of 32 enzymatically debrided hands of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 42.4 ± 16.8 years and a mean follow-up of 31 months. Postoperatively, 19 of these could be managed conservatively using skin substitutes such as “Suprathel”, 13 had to undergo subsequent autografting. The mean DASH score for the entire study population was eight with a mean value of four in the conservatively managed group and fourteen in the autografted group. The mean Patient, Observer POSAS, and VSS values were nineteen, thirteen, and two. A total of 30 cases showed an effortless complete fist closure, and, also in 30 cases, patients attested to be satisfied with the esthetic appearance of the hand on being asked. Conclusions: The descriptive analysis of these results in our study population suggests that the enzymatic debridement of deep burns of the hand, especially combined with subsequent conservative management with skin substitutes, was associated with low long-term hand disability scores at a follow-up of two years.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".