Post-Appendectomy Surgical Site Infection Rate after Using an Antimicrobial Film Incise Drape: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An appendectomy is a contaminated or potentially dirty surgical procedure that can be associated with surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: A single-center unblinded prospective cohort study examined the role of antimicrobial incise film drapes in lowering the rate of SSI after appendectomy. Any patient aged 12 years or older who was scheduled for open appendectomy for acute appendicitis was included. Patients were assigned to two groups. Group 1 (n=52) had the standard five-minute skin preparation with 10% povidone-iodine soap followed by the application of an antimicrobial film incise drape, and group 2 (n=39) had the standard skin preparation alone. RESULTS: Six (11.5%) of the 52 patients who had the antimicrobial film incise drape and two (5.1%) of the 39 patients who did not have the drape developed SSI (p=NS). Of the six patients in the antimicrobial film group with post-operative SSI, three had a perforated appendix, two had a gangrenous appendix, and one had an inflamed appendix. In group 2, one patient had an inflamed appendix and the other had a perforated appendix. The median length of stay in the hospital was two days (range 1-11 days) for both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study did not support the view that antimicrobial film incise drapes can lower the rate of post-appendectomy SSI. Moreover, the length of stay was not minimized by the use of these drapes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".