Scar Assessment after Thyroidectomy Using Alexis Wound Protector: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thyroidectomy is one of the common surgical procedures in otolaryngology society. Living with visible scars post thyroid surgery can be socially challenging, with functional impairment and psychological costs leading to low self-esteem and social isolation. Alexis wound protector is used in multiple surgical procedures. We postulate that using of Alexis wound protector in thyroidectomy will lead to better scar quality. Material and Methods: This is a prospective cohort study conducted at a single institute. Included patients who underwent total or hemithyroidectomy for 6 consecutive months in single institute. Data were collected from hospital surgical records. A total of 30 patients were included however six patients lost during the follow-up period, These patients were divided into two groups: (group A) at which Alexis wound protector was applied, and (group B) where Langenbeck retractor was utilized. All scars were assessed by single-blinded physician 12 months after surgery. Assessment was performed by applying the following scales: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), the Vancouver Scar Scale, and a modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES). Results: The total number of patients was 24 patients, with 12 patients in each group. The mean scar scores in Alexis wound protector use group (group A) were higher than mean of group B. However, none of these findings reached statistical significance. There were no significant differences in the scar scores based by gender, duration of surgery, length of incision, largest lobe volume and diameter, and body mass index. Only age had a significant effect in POSAS, OSAS, and SBSES scores, P values were 0.02, 0.007, and 0.03, respectively. Conclusions: we conclude that the usage of Alexis wound protector had no effect on the final cosmetic appearance of the scar 1 year after surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".