Improved Recovery Experience Achieved for Women Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery was compared with traditional recovery after surgery for postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction. METHODS: Length of stay, emergency room visits, and complications within 30 days of surgery were compared among three groups: traditional recovery after surgery, transition (some elements of enhanced recovery protocol, not transitioned to outpatient care), and enhanced recovery after surgery (day surgery, provided with standardized perioperative education and multimodal analgesia). Prospective data collection allowed quality-of-recovery assessment using a validated questionnaire for enhanced recovery/transition groups. Results were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance/chi-square). RESULTS: The traditional recovery, transition, and enhanced recovery cohorts comprised 29, 11, and 29 patients, respectively. No significant differences were present regarding age, smoking status, preoperative radiation, single stage direct-to-implant versus tissue expander, bilateral versus unilateral surgery, or immediate versus delayed reconstruction among groups. Average length of stay was 1.6 nights in both the traditional recovery and transition groups, compared with 0 nights in the enhanced recovery group (p < 0.001). Enhanced recovery patients had less severe pain (p = 0.02) and nausea (p = 0.01), and better enjoyed their food (p = 0.0002) and felt more rested (p = 0.02) than their transition counterparts. There were no differences in the number of emergency room visits among the three groups (p = 0.88). There was no difference in the rate of hematoma (p = 0.36), infection requiring intravenous antibiotics (p = 0.36), or infection requiring explantation (p = 0.36) among the three groups. CONCLUSION: An enhanced recovery protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction treated patients safely, with improved patient satisfaction and same-day discharge and with no increase in complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
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) | 0.002 | 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".