This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2003;5:202.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY ENLIGHTENING to read differing conclusions drawn in a study similar to one that you have performed. Our results and conclusions¹ may differ from those of Kriet et al² and Brodner et al³ because of technical issues related to measuring the force required to elevate periosteum from calvarium. Periosteal avulsion at a 45^o angle from bone is not analogous to clinical situations, but was chosen for our study to provide a greater stress to wound healing than would any motion simulating sliding. We thus may have been able to discern subtler differences in healing at the soft tissue–hard tissue interface. Also, we have closed our wounds under no tension, again not directly clinically applicable; however, a prior study⁴ showed no significant differences in wound healing histologic characteristics between tension-free and tension-prone scalp-calvarium closures, and we do not believe this has a significant effect on closure strengths.

While . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Evaluation of Pericranial Skull Adherence and Periosteal Healing in the Rabbit Model
Nicanor Isse and David N. Sayah
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2003;5(2):164-165.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT