A Comparison of Two Methods of Infiltration in Breast Reduction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superwet technique has been shown in previous studies to dramatically reduce blood loss in breast reduction surgery, compared with standard infiltration. A retrospective chart review of 303 consecutive patients undergoing bilateral breast reduction surgery was undertaken to demonstrate additional differences in complication rate, operative time, or sponge use in the operating room. In this series, 132 consecutive patients received standard infiltration along incision lines (25 cc per breast of 1:100,000 epinephrine), and 171 patients received superwet infiltration with 240 cc per breast of 1:1,000,000 epinephrine. The average operative time was significantly reduced in the superwet group, from 78.5 minutes to 70.7 minutes (p < 0.01 level). The average number of sponges used intraoperatively was also decreased significantly (p < 0.01), from 26 to 20 sponges. Complication rates were equally low in both groups, demonstrating the safety of the superwet technique. In addition to limiting blood loss, the superwet infiltration effectively reduces operative time and sponge use without increasing complications in breast reduction surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".