Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and skin healing experience of the plastic and reconstructive surgery department at CHU Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceima
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platelet-rich plasma is an autologous product that has shown utility in various specialties, such as plastic and reconstructive surgery, orthopedics, and orthodontics. However, studies on its clinical efficacy remain inconclusive. One of the main reasons for this is the use of different preparation protocols, resulting in varying responses that cannot be compared. We present a prospective comparative study involving 10 patients with facial skin scars. Half of the patients underwent surgical scar revision, while the other half received, in addition to surgery, an injection of platelet-rich plasma. This study was conducted within the plastic and reconstructive surgery department of CHU Tanger over a 4-year period from May 2020 to September 2024. Our series included all consenting patients with facial scars that were painful, reddish, inflammatory, hard, hyperpigmented, depressed, tethered, or presenting as chronic ulcers. We excluded unstable scars, keloids, infected or suspicious scars, and those of tumoral origin. We analyzed scar characteristics, including dimensions, sensitivity, shape, location, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). After PRP injection, the VSS score improved to 2.8, with 90% of scars showing no inflammation, 80% achieving normal skin coloration, and all scars becoming supple. The average length, width, and thickness were reduced to 55mm, 3.25mm, and 0.75mm, respectively. In conclusion, PRP injection is a novel and promising modality that we recommend for treating facial scars and chronic wounds, with no risk of adverse side effects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".