Clinical efficacy, postoperative complication risks, and parental satisfaction in pediatric patients receiving tension-reducing suture treatment for facial lacerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy, postoperative complication risks, and parental satisfaction of tension-reducing sutures in pediatric patients with facial lacerations. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 122 pediatric patients (aged 1–12 years) with facial lacerations who met predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., aged 1–12 years, wound length 1–5 cm, etc.; see Methods for details) and underwent surgical treatment at our hospital between January 2020 and August 2024. Based on the surgical technique received, the patients were divided into the tension-reducing suture group n = 61) and the conventional suture group (n = 61). The two groups were compared regarding baseline clinical characteristics, clinical efficacy, scar formation, surgical features, postoperative complications, and parental satisfaction. Results The primary healing rate (Grade A) in the tension-reducing suture group was 88.5% (54/61), significantly higher than that in the conventional suture group (73.8%, 45/61), with a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 4.340, p = 0.037). At postoperative 1 month [(4.25 ± 1.16) vs. (4.80 ± 1.21)] and 3 months [(3.69 ± 1.03) vs. (4.08 ± 1.10)], the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores in the tension-reducing suture group were significantly lower than those in the conventional suture group (t = −2.594, −2.044; p = 0.011, 0.043). The tension-reducing suture group had longer operative time [(55.08 ± 11.23) min vs. (50.16 ± 10.46) min], more suture layers [(2.85 ± 0.54) vs. (2.61 ± 0.58)], and more sutures [(41.48 ± 8.42) vs. (38.49 ± 6.20)] compared to the conventional suture group (t = 2.502, 2.406, 2.229; p = 0.014, 0.018, 0.028). No significant difference was observed in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (p > 0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 4.9% (3/61) in the tension-reducing suture group and 14.8% (9/61) in the conventional suture group, with no statistically significant difference (χ2 = 3.327, p = 0.068). Parental overall satisfaction was 93.4% (57/61) in the tension-reducing suture group and 80.3% (49/61) in the conventional suture group, showing a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 4.604, p = 0.032). Conclusion Tension-reducing suture technique is more conducive to promoting primary wound healing and reducing scar formation in pediatric patients. Additionally, this suturing method was associated with a trend towards fewer complications while improving parental satisfaction with surgical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".