VACUOTHERAPY VERSUS SHOCK WAVE THERAPY ON SURGICAL SCARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Worldwide attention for post-surgical scar as a visible endpoint of healing. Potential evidence regarding vacuotherapy as an alternative therapy, and well-known shock wave therapy for their therapeutic benefits on surgical scars. Purpose: To determine efficacy of vacuotherapy versus shock wave therapy on post-surgical scars. Method: Forty participants of both genders with immature surgical scars <6 months from Kafr Shokr Specialized Hospital, and Dermatology Hospital, Banha, age range was 20-45 years old, free from any post-surgical complications. They were randomly allocated into two equal groups in numbers; Group A received extracorporeal shock wave therapy one session every two weeks; and Group B received vacuotherapy 3 sessions per week, from June 2023 to March 2024. Evaluation involving scar pliability, vascularity, pigmentation and height using Vancouver scar scale and objective scar pliability and elasticity using modified schiotz tonometer. Statistical analyses with significance level 0.05 level. Result: Unsignificant differences revealed at baseline analysis. Both groups had revealed a significant decrease in Vancouver scar scale reported values, and a significant increase in modified schiotz tonometer reported values post treatment. While, there was significant increase in group I compared with group II post treatment in term of scar pliability, vascularity, pigmentation, height, and elasticity. Conclusion: Both vacuotherapy and shock wave therapy are valuable. Shock wave therapy was superior in terms of scar pliability, vascularity, pigmentation, height, and elasticity. Therefore, shock wave therapy could be recommended in immature surgical scars with functional restrictions management
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".