Evaluation of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy dressing in the management of mommy makeover surgery wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This investigation explores the potential impact of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) dressing on mommy makeover surgical wounds. The focus is on optimizing the healing process and post-surgical care to mitigate complications like wound dehiscence, seroma, and hematoma.Patients and methods A prospective study spanned from October 2015 to April 2022, involving 40 patients undergoing mommy makeover surgery for aesthetic purposes. The randomized division resulted in two groups. Group one (n = 20) had donor sites covered with NPWT dressing, while group two (n = 20) received standard dressings lacking known healing-promoting agents. The assessment of complications served as an index of NPWT efficacy, and scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scale.Results Immediate post-surgical use of NPWT dressings significantly expedited wound healing compared to fine-mesh gauze dressings. Furthermore, it almost eradicated discomfort and pain in all patients, indicating excellent compliance. Patients tolerated NPWT well, with no instances of dressing failure or non-compliance.Conclusion This study underscores the utility of NPWT dressing in managing mommy makeover surgery wounds. The dressing’s bio-occlusive properties create an optimal environment for wound healing, simultaneously minimizing pain, discomfort, and preventing key complications such as seroma and unfavorable scar appearance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".