The effect of fibrin sealant on the prevention of seroma formation after postbariatric abdominoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seroma formation is one of the most common complications following abdominoplasty. Fibrin sealant/glue has shown mixed results in seroma prevention when used in a variety of procedures. Limited information is available on its effectiveness during postbariatric abdominoplasty. METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis of 65 consecutive patients who underwent postbariatric abdominoplasty over a course of 16 months by a single surgeon was performed. Two sequential groups either receiving or not receiving fibrin sealant treatment were defined. Seroma formation and initial 24 h drain output volumes were recorded. RESULTS: Three patients in group 1 (9.1%) receiving fibrin sealant developed seroma. Twelve patients in group 2 (28.1%) not receiving fibrin sealant developed seroma; this was statistically significant (P=0.006). Twenty-four hour drain output was also statistically different, with higher initial output in the fibrin sealant group (222.2 mL versus 140.0 mL; P=0.047). CONCLUSION: Fibrin sealant was a useful adjunct during surgical wound closure and significantly decreased seroma formation in patients undergoing postbariatric abdominoplasty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".