Late results of surgery for pilonidal disease with an assessment of the cosmetic effect after various options for wound closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: to improve late results of pilonidal disease treatment.PATIENTS AND METHODS: a multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with pilonidal disease using the original new method — the main group (n = 31) and patients with Karidakis method as controls (n = 70). The recurrence rate was estimated. Six months after surgery, ultrasound, the Vancouver Scale and the SF-36 questionnaire assessed the postoperative scar, cosmetic result and quality of life.RESULTS: the cosmetic effect of the postoperative scar was evaluated and significant differences between groups were obtained. According to the Vancouver Scale, 12 (41.4%) patients of the main group and 11 (16.9%) patients from the control group had a normal color of the postoperative scar (0 points) (p = 0.02). When assessing the pigmentation of the scar, it was found that normal pigmentation (0 points) was found in 8 (28.0%) patients of the main group, and in the control group this indicator was only 5 (8.0%) cases (p = 0.02). The pressure-resistant scar density (2 points) was 17 (59.0%) patients in the main group and 22 (34.0%) patients in the control group (p = 0.04). The scar width in the group using the new method was 1–2 mm (1 point) in 20 cases (69%), whereas in the control group, a similar scar width was recorded in 18 (28.0%) patients (p < 0.001). When evaluating the results of ultrasound of the soft tissue infiltration zone (p = 0.26) and the volume of infiltration (p = 0.36), as well as assessing the quality of life, no significant differences were found. There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate: in the main group it was 2 (6.45%), in the comparison group — 5 (7.14%) cases (p = 0.77).CONCLUSIONS: a new original method for pilonidal disease in comparison with the Karydakis method provides a better cosmetic result
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".