MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502410017 · doi:10.1177/229255030901700101

An Illuminating No-Touch Device for Breast Augmentation

2009· article· en· W1502410017 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Bell, Daniel McKee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomedical engineeringOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skin contact of breast prostheses is considered by many to be a significant cause of ongoing subclinical infection leading to subsequent symptomatic capsular contracture (1–5). Many surgeons employ a no-touch technique, aiming to lower capsular contracture rates by eliminating skin contamination. One approach requires several assistants to hold retractors so that the implant can be inserted into the pocket without touching the skin (6). This is somewhat awkward and imprecise, and adds the expense of an additional assistant. Others have adopted a no-touch approach that uses a sterile tube or a simple anoscope acting as a sterile sleeve, which works quite well with a single assistant (7). The present paper describes a surgical instrument designed for the insertion of breast prostheses. The instrument can be used quite safely and efficiently by a surgeon with one nurse assistant. It has enhanced illumination, enabling good hemostasis, and is particularly easy to make at low cost. The casing of a 60 mL Toomey syringe is cut with a fine saw on an approximate 45° angle, and is used in both a long (100 mm) and short (66 mm) version (Figure 1). The tip is heat burnished with a butane torch to smooth the cut edges, and more importantly, to convert the plastic from opaque to clear. When used with a headlight, the translucent wide end of the syringe casing absorbs the light, and the clear tip, which is now within the dissected pocket, transmits the light with enhanced intensity. The amount of illumination is quite significant and beneficial, particularly when viewing the corners of a pocket with the longer casing, to ensure that there is good hemostasis (Figure 2). The shorter version works well for the insertion of the prosthesis. Figure 1) A 66 mm (top) and 100 mm (bottom) section of a 60 mL Toomey syringe that has been cut on a 45° angle Figure 2) After the tip has been heat burnished it becomes translucent, transmitting light with enhanced intensity Once hemostasis is complete, the prosthesis, partially filled with 30 mL of normal saline, is simply folded and lubricated with Bacitracin (Pfizer Canada Inc) or saline (Figures 3 and ​and4).4). It is passed as a folded tube through the lumen of the shorter casing into the pocket. This is atraumatic for the prosthesis, and completely prevents any elements of contact between the prosthesis and the skin. We have used implants as large as 400 mL that, when filled with 30 mL of saline, can simply be folded and passed through without difficulty. Figure 3) The prosthesis is passed as a folded tube through the lumen of the shorter casing into the pocket, preventing any elements of contact between the prosthesis and the skin Figure 4) The prosthesis is completely within the pocket after passing through the lumen of the shorter casing This device has many advantages over the anoscope because it transmits far more light, and its diameter fits into a 4.5 cm incision, which is quite acceptable for inframammary incisions. Its length can be determined by the surgeon’s preference. The author has not used this for axillary or periareolar incisions, but the principle to avoid the prosthesis skin contact should still exist. A no-touch sleeve device’s ability to reduce the incidence of infection and subsequent capsule formation is a question that could only be resolved by a large randomized series, which has not been done to date. The advantage of this new device in ensuring hemostasis is a significant advantage in itself. It is low cost and reusable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207