ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2020
Primary Dermis Fat Grafting for Socket Reconstruction: Retrospective Comparison of Electrocoagulation versus Scalpel Dissection for Epidermis Removal.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate outcomes of the use of electrocoagulation for epidermis removal in dermis fat grafting (DFG) compared to the conventional scalpel dissection in patients who underwent primary anophthalmic socket reconstruction.
designRetrospective, observational, and comparative study.
methodsA retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent primary DFG for socket reconstruction between 2017 and 2019 at tertiary teaching hospitals. Patients with previous orbital surgery, previous radiotherapy to the periocular region, any medical condition that affects healing, cicatrizing ocular surface disease or heavy smokers were excluded. Patients with complete documentation of preoperative and postoperative data only were included. Patients were divided into two groups; group A: epidermis removal by the traditional scalpel dissection and group B: epidermis removal using low power setting electrocoagulation. The main outcome was the timing of complete epithelialization of the dermis layer. Other outcomes included implant motility, prosthesis fitting, patient's satisfaction, and any complications.
resultsA total of 27 patients met the study criteria, and the mean follow-up period was 24.81 months. There were no differences between both groups regarding preoperative characteristics. The mean duration of complete epithelialization of the DFG implant was 9.15 ± 2.94 weeks in group A compared to 22.29 ± 4.43 weeks in group B (p value <0.001). Dermal ulceration was noticed in 9 patients (64.3%) in group B compared to none in group A (p value =0.001). Dermal ulceration was significantly associated with long conjunctival healing period (p value <0.001). Volume loss was more common in group B while graft hirsutism and granuloma were more evident in group A. Final prosthesis fitting was possible in all included patients.
conclusionEpidermis removal using the electrocoagulation is related to much more delayed epithelialization of the dermis with a higher rate of dermal ulceration compared to the scalpel dissection technique. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the final prosthesis fitting or the overall patient satisfaction.
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.