Abstract: Effect of Absorbable Skin Stapler in Autologous Breast Reconstruction Patients: Approach Through Economic and Cosmesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In abdominal based autologous breast reconstructions, abdominal closure is a time-consuming procedure. The time cost of the skin closure process is difficult to reduce. However, skin suture using absorbable subcuticular staples, which allow for increased rapid closure can provide equivalent healing capacity in various situations of incision closure.1 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic efficacy and cosmetic satisfaction of wound closure with an absorbable subcuticular stapling system, and compare these results obtained with conventional dermal sutures in breast reconstruction patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The A total 94 patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction were included the study. Of these, INSORB® was used in 64 patients and we compared 30 patient’s clinical data as a conventional suture group. We provided a controlled surgical environment for evaluate effect of choice of closure material. For exclude the possibility of surgical procedure variety, we divide into free flap and pedicle flap groups and each group has stapler and control groups. For analysis of cost-effectivenss we applied endotracheal anesthesia expenses, and objective assessment by resident and questionnaire by patient was made for scar evaluation.2 RESULTS: Using paired t test, statistical analysis was made. An pedicle flap group represents 387.2hrs (stapler), 480.5hrs(control) (t-value -2.031, p-value 0.043) and free flap group represents 442.0hrs(stapler), 514.8hrs(control) (t-value -2.037, p-value 0.025) as average anesthesia time. A gap of time reduction is 93.3hrs in pedicle flap group and 72.8hrs in free flap group for absorbable stapler used groups. These reduce time of total general anesthesia in absorbable groups, which is equivalent to a 135.67$ in pedicle group and 128.35$ in free flap group. In regards to the expenses of INSORB®, only the group that used 1 stapler is significant. The complication rate, duration of healing period and the patient’s satisfaction of the scar did not differ between each group. CONCLUSION: An absorbable staples are effective materials that allow cost-effective closure when used appropriately. While dealing with cutting-edge technology,3,4 we need to consider patients benefits that would get overwhelming his expenses. In that point, only 1 stapler used in abdominal closure is effective not to be two used. And also we could find this is no way inferior to conventional suture. The availability of time reduction with equivalent cosmetic results is appealing aspects for applying reconstruction operation. DISCLOSURE/FINANCIAL SUPPORT:Nothing to declare. REFERENCES: 1. Gatt D, Quick CR, Owen-Smith MS. Staples for wound closure: a controlled trial. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1985;67:318–20. 2. Pauline T. Truong, Standardized Assessment of Breast Cancer Surgical Scars Integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Patients’ Perspectives, PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2005; 116:1291 3. Bastian PJ, Haferkamp A, Albers P, Müller SC. A new form of noninvasive wound closure with a surgical zipper. J Urol 2003;169:1785–6. 4. Luck RP, Flood R, Eyal D, Saludades J, Hayes C, Gaughan J. Cosmetic outcomes of absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008;24:137–42.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".