A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing the Clinical Outcomes of the Hydrosurgery System and Traditional Single‐Incision Surgery for Axillary Osmidrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative scarring, complication rates, and efficacy between the hydrosurgery system and traditional single-incision surgical techniques for treating axillary osmidrosis. METHODS: A retrospective collection was conducted of all patients who underwent radical surgery for axillary osmidrosis at the Day Surgery Unit of the Department of Plastic Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of the Army Medical University from January 2023 to January 2024. Patients were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and divided into the hydrosurgery group and the traditional surgery group. The evaluation was done through medical records, follow-up records, electronic questionnaires, and photographs. Assessments included 6-month postoperative scarring conditions, comprehensive effectiveness scores, postoperative odor/hair/sweating scores, postoperative dermatological life quality scores, and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients completed this study: 34 in the hydrosurgery group and 39 in the traditional surgery group. 6 months postoperatively, the hydrosurgery group had significantly lower scores of the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), 0.5 (range 0.0-2.0) compared with 1.5 (range 0.5-3.0) in the traditional surgery group (p = 0.018). The incidence of complications such as subcutaneous hematoma, epidermal necrosis, and wound dissidence was also lower (26.5% vs. 51.3%, p = 0.031). Additionally, the surgical incision length in the hydrosurgery group was significantly smaller than in the traditional surgery group (1.200 cm (1.000, 1.275) vs. 2.500 cm (2.500, 3.000), p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding comprehensive effectiveness scores, postoperative odor/hair/sweating scores, postoperative dermatological life quality index, and surgical duration. CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional single-incision surgical techniques, patients in the hydrosurgery group exhibited lower scar scores 6 months postsurgery, required smaller surgical incisions, and had lower rates of surgical complications. Thus, the hydrosurgery is suitable for the minimally invasive surgical treatment of axillary osmidrosis, offering a safe, effective, and aesthetically superior treatment method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".