Use of Abdominal Quilting Sutures for Seroma Prevention in TRAM Flap Reconstruction:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief This study is designed to evaluate the effect of abdominal quilting sutures on the incidence of abdominal seroma formation in patients undergoing pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction. It is theorized that the use of such sutures during closure of abdominal flaps will collapse dead space, thus preventing abdominal seroma formation. A total of 71 consecutive patients undergoing pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction were randomly assigned to receive abdominal quilting sutures or to undergo a standard abdominal closure. Primary outcome measures included: daily drain output for the first 3 postoperative days, time to drain removal, and seroma formation. Drain output per day decreased with the use of abdominal quilting sutures; however, the time to drain removal was not significantly affected. Most importantly, there was no significant decrease in the incidence of seroma formation with the use of abdominal quilting sutures in this series. Seventy-one consecutive patients undergoing pedicled TRAM procedures were randomized to receive either abdominal quilting sutures or standard closure. There was decreased drain output with quilting sutures but no difference in seroma formation or time to drain removal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".