Impact of age in the healing time in myocutaneous and perforator flaps for pelvic pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Specific management of people with spinal cord injury has allowed to improve their life expectancy. The objective of this study was to analyze if age was a factor affecting the healing time of surgery for pelvic pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury. METHODS: Retrospective, monocentric study, enrolling all consecutive spinal cord injury participants admitted into a specialized Neurological Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation department for surgery for pelvic pressure ulcers during a 5-year period. Participants were divided into two groups, "Young group" patients aged between 18 and 64 years and "Senior group" patients over 65 years of age. Healing time was defined as the time required for complete closure, allowing mobilization of the lower limbs. Data related to the complication rate (dehiscence, hematoma, infection, flap necrosis), medical or psychiatric decompensation, length of stay and time to rehabilitation were collected. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen participants were recruited, including 77 participants in the "Young group" and 37 in the "Senior group". In total, 131 pressure ulcers were operated. The median of the healing time was 46 [32.0;68.8] days, with a minimum of 20 days and a maximum of 694 days. Seven participants were considered as healing failures. There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups with 43 days [35.0;52.0] for the "Young group" and 56 days [40.0;80.0] for the "Senior group" (p = 0.44). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative healing time of flaps for pelvic pressure ulcers between participant below and above 65 years of age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".