Safety and efficacy of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy following open saphenous vein harvest in cardiac surgery: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Surgical site complications following great saphenous vein (GSV) harvest presents a significant risk of morbidity. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has shown promise in the treatment and prophylaxis of open wounds and surgical incisions but has not been studied following GSV harvest. We performed a feasibility study examining the use of NPWT following GSV harvest for coronary bypass surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients were recruited in this single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint assessed feasibility by examining rates of device complication and malfunction. Secondary endpoints included rates of surgical site infection, lower leg complications, discharge date, and quality of life at discharge and 6 weeks. NPWT was delivered using the Prevena NPWT device. Results: There were no complications associated with NPWT which required intervention aside from discontinuation. NPWT was tolerated in 91% (30/33) of patients for the duration of treatment with an average of 4.8 days (±1.45 days). Device malfunction which required discontinuation was 6% (2/33) and involved a malfunctioning pressure sensor and did not affect patient care or present safety concerns. One patient had allergic contact dermatitis to the adhesive and had the device removed. NPWT patients had an earlier date of discharge (6 vs 10 days, P = 0.008), increased ability for self-care ( P = 0.0234) and quality of life ( P = 0.039) at initial assessment, and increased mobility at initial and follow-up assessment ( P = 0.0117 and 0.0123). Conclusions: The use of NPWT following GSV harvest is safe, well tolerated and improves postoperative recovery with prolonged impact on mobility at 6 weeks. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01698372 ; registration number: NCT01698372.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".