Superior Pedicle Breast Reduction Techniques Increase the Risk of Postoperative Drainage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most frequent complication after bilateral reduction mammoplasty (BRM) is the formation of seromas and hematomas. If a group of patients who are at increased risk of seroma and hematoma are identified, the use of drains in this group would be beneficial. We hypothesized that superior pedicle reductions would have increased postoperative drainage. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to identify independent risk factors for increased drainage after BRM. Blinded research nurses were employed to record the amount of drainage during the postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for increased postoperative drainage. RESULTS: The study included a total of 111 patients. Univariate analysis identified the amount of preoperative infiltration (P < 0.001), the amount of liposuction (P < 0.001), the amount of surgically resected tissue (P = 0.001), the type of reduction (P < 0.001), the patient's chest circumference (P = 0.035), and the patient's body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.015) as significant predictors of postoperative drainage. Multivariate regression analysis identified the amount of tissue resected and the type of reduction as the only 2 independent predictors of postoperative drainage. The use of superior pedicle technique predicted 43% of the variability in postoperative wound drainage. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the superior pedicle technique for BRM is associated with a significant increase in postoperative drainage. Surgeons using this technique should consider the routine use of drains to avoid possible complications of seroma, infection, and poor wound healing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".