MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404497509 · doi:10.1097/dss.0000000000004498

CO2 Laser Versus Surgical Deroofing for the Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Tunnels: A Comparative Multicentric, Retrospective Study

2024· article· en· W4404497509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Sechi, Alessandra Michelucci, Valentina Dini, Stefano Piaserico, Iris Zalaudek, Francesco Savoia, Jacopo Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHidradenitis suppurativaVisual analogue scaleSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyLaser treatmentPain scoreComplicationLaserInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tunnels of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are one of the most challenging aspects to manage, and different surgical techniques have been proposed for their treatment. CO 2 laser and surgical deroofing are 2 of the most widely used techniques, but no studies have compared them directly. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of CO 2 laser treatment versus surgical deroofing for HS tunnels, with a focus on healing time, complication rates, pain perception, and cosmetic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a multicentric retrospective analysis of 20 patients with HS tunnels who were treated with either CO 2 laser ( n = 10) or surgical deroofing ( n = 10). The primary end point was to compare the 2 procedures in terms of healing time, complication rates, pain, and cosmetic outcome. Outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for pain, the Vancouver Scar Scale for scar evaluation, and the relapse rate at 6 months. Secondary end point included the identification of variables associated with the healing time. RESULTS: The mean time to healing was 4.7 ± 1.9 weeks in the CO 2 laser group and 10.9 ± 4.1 weeks in the surgical deroofing group ( p < .01). Pain score at the first dressing change was lower in the CO 2 laser group, with a mean Visual Analog Scale score of 1.7 ± 0.8 in the CO 2 laser group and 4.9 ± 1.7 in the surgical deroofing group ( p < .01). The mean scar evaluation score using the Vancouver Scar Scale at 6-month follow-up was 2.5 ± 1.3 in the CO 2 laser group and 3.4 ± 1.1 in the surgical deroofing group. The number of postprocedural complications was low in both groups (1 in the CO 2 laser group and 3 in the surgical deroofing group). The proportion of patients achieving complete healing of the tunnels at 6 months was similar among the CO 2 laser and the surgical deroofing group (90% in the CO 2 laser group vs 80% in the surgical group). CONCLUSION: CO 2 laser is a safe and effective treatment for HS tunnels, with fast healing rates and low pain perception.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic SurgerySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207