Comparison of Colorado Needle Electrocautery and Traditional Scalpel for Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty Incision: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lower eyelid blepharoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic procedures. Electrocautery provides a hemostatic benefit for skin incision; however, its effect on scar cosmesis remains unclear, particularly in Asian skin types. We compared the Colorado needle electrocautery (pure-cutting mode) versus the traditional scalpel in terms of efficacy, complications, and cosmetic outcomes. Methods: A prospective intraindividual randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of Colorado needle electrocautery and scalpel in lower blepharoplasty. The study outcomes were scar quality at different times until 1 year postoperatively, bleeding during incision, and postoperative ecchymosis. Scar quality was evaluated using 3 standard scar ratings: the Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and Hollander wound evaluation scale. Results: < 0.001); however, 1-year scar quality was not statistically significant between the groups. Conclusions: Colorado needle electrocautery pure-cutting mode can be an alternative to the traditional scalpel for lower eyelid blepharoplasty skin incision because of long-term scar quality. Electrocautery also has hemostatic benefits, leading to a decrease in intraoperative and postoperative bleeding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".