Efficacy and safety of vacuum sealing drainage combined with skin grafting for the treatment of limb burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Exploring the efficacy and safety of vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) combined with skin grafting for limb burns. Methodology: This retrospective cohort study collected clinical records of 140 patients with limb burns who underwent skin grafting surgery in Yongkang First People's Hospital from November, 2021 to October, 2024. Among them, 70 patients who received the first stage VSD combined with the second stage skin grafting treatment (VSD group) were matched in a 1:1 ratio with the queue of patients who received a traditional dressing change treatment combined with the second stage skin grafting treatment (conventional group). The healing time, granulation growth time, length of hospital stay, scar hyperplasia (as assessed by the Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS), degree of pain and incidence of complications were compared. Results: The healing time, granulation growth time, length of hospital stay and VSS score of the VSD group were lower than those of the conventional group (P<0.05). The VAS scores of the VSD group were lower compared to the conventional group at one, three and seven days after treatment (P<0.05). VSD combined with skin grafting was associated with a significantly lower (18.6%) incidence of complications than the conventional treatment (34.3%) (P<0.05). Conclusions: VSD combined with skin grafting is safer than the traditional treatment approach and is more efficient in shortening the wound healing process and reducing pain and scar formation in patients with limb burns.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".