The Impact of Early and Delayed Fat Transplantation on Scar Quality in Post-Traumatic Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effects of early versus delayed fat transplantation on post-traumatic scars using adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) to enhance scar quality and address the aesthetic and psychological challenges in reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 223 patients treated at Capital Medical University Beijing Shijitan Hospital between June 2022 and June 2023. Scar quality was evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and scar width measurements at 1, 3, and 4 months postoperatively. Complications were monitored during hospital stays and follow-up visits, while Quality of Life was assessed using the World Health Organization Quality of Life brief version (WHOQOL-BREF). RESULTS: A retrospective cohort study of 223 patients with post-traumatic scars was conducted to compare the outcomes of early (n = 108) versus delayed (n = 115) fat grafting. Scar width reduction was significantly greater in the early group at 3 months (1.19 ± 0.30 cm) and 4 months (1.97 ± 0.58 cm) compared to the delayed group (1.31 ± 0.34 cm at 3 months and 2.15 ± 0.55 cm at 4 months; p < 0.05). The early group also demonstrated better VSS scores at 3 months (6.35 ± 1.26) and 4 months (2.16 ± 0.78) than the delayed group (6.81 ± 1.48 at 3 months and 2.37 ± 0.28 at 4 months; p < 0.05). However, the early group exhibited a higher complication rate (9.26% vs. 2.61%; p = 0.034). No significant difference was found in Quality of Life scores between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early fat transplantation improves scar quality but is associated with a higher complication rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".