ArticleMedicine2018
An alternative strategy treated giant congenital melanocytic nevi with epidermis and superficial dermis of the lesions.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Satisfactory Wound Reconstruction with a Local Rotation Flap After Removal of Large Penile Divided Nevi: Original Technique, Early and Mid-Term Results.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022Article
- Treatment of giant congenital melanocytic nevi with cultured epithelial autografts: Clinical and histopathological analysis.Regenerative therapy · 2021Article
- Neurocutaneous melanocytosis (melanosis).Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Giant congenital melanocytic nevi (GCMN) are defined as rare pigmented lesions that are believed to form between weeks 9 and 20 of gestation. It is difficult to reconstruct large defects after the removal of the lesions and it has posed a great challenge to the plastic surgeon and dermatologist.Given all those difficulty reconstructing the defects, we try to explore an alternative way to resurfacing the defect after removal of GCMN.Patients with GCMN received single-stage excision. Following the subcutaneous tissue and deep dermis were discarded, epidermis and superficial dermis were harvested as graft substitutes to reconstruct the defects in situ.All of the grafted tissue survived well and skin color in the surgical area gradually became lighter. During the periodicity of follow-up, neither hypertrophic scars nor recurrence were observed. Furthermore, histopathology examination demonstrated that there are no distinct melanocytes gathered in the postoperation lesions.For those GCMN which is difficult to reconstruct with traditional methods, resection of the lesion followed by reconstruction with epidermis skin and superficial dermis from the lesions in situ may be a feasible and alternative therapy method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.