MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409073809 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraf019.174

545 Meek Micrografting and a Bioabsorbable Scaffold for Skin Coverage in Extensive Burn Injuries

2025· article· en· W4409073809 on OpenAlexaff
David K. Wallace, Stephanie Mason, Alan D. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScaffoldBurn woundSurgeryWound healingBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The management of burn injuries over 50% of the body surface area requires a reliable and reproducible strategy to enhance healing and obtain satisfactory outcomes. This paper explores the application of Meek Micrografting and a bioabsorbable scaffold as a comprehensive treatment approach for these patients at an American Burn Association verified Burn center. Methods All patients admitted with full thickness flame burn injuries over 50% TBSA who underwent application of the bioabsorbable scaffold (BS) and Meek micrografting over a two- year period, were included in the study. Data collected included patient demographics, co-morbidities, mechanism and extent of burn injury, surgical approach and hospital course, as well as complications. Results Eleven adult patients were included in this retrospective study (Table). Their mean age was 43.2 years (range 21-72 years) and all but three were male. Their mean TBSA burn was 61.2% (range 50 -74%), with Inhalation injury grade of 2.1 and Baux score of 108.3 (range 86-137). Mean length of stay was 66.5 days (range 44-80), and 8.3 surgeries (range 6-12) were undertaken. Tracheostomy was performed at a mean of 17.2 days. The Meek surgery was usually the final surgery and was performed at a mean of 42.1 days (range 35 – 53 days) after admission. The BS and Meek strategy covered almost half of the burn surface area (mean 29.5% TBSA, or 45.5% of the burn). The 3:1 expansion ratio was used in all patients. The average operative time used per % TBSA covered decreased over the period, with 15.18 minutes per % TBSA during the initial five cases, and 10.8 minutes during the second six cases (p = 0.03). One patient required partial removal of the BS for MRSA infection. Micrograft take exceeded 90% in all cases, and no further autografting was undertaken. All but one of the patients survived to discharge after a period of inpatient rehabilitation. Conclusions The bioabsorbable scaffold (BS) provides Meek micrografts with a stable, homogenous, well vascularized and therefore receptive wound bed. We present a series of eleven patients with extensive burns who received the combination of these two strategies to good effect. Applicability of Research to Practice With greater experience, burn operating teams can reduce operative time per TBSA covered and obtain excellent outcomes using 3:1 Meek on the wound bed provided by the boabsorbable scaffold. Funding for the Study N/A

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207