Implementing Our Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Pathway: Consensus Obstacles and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways are well established in other surgical specialties but are relatively new in plastic surgery. These guidelines focus on improving patient care by incorporating evidence-based recommendations. Length of stay is shorter, and overall hospital costs are lower without compromising patient satisfaction. When care is standardized, ambiguity is removed and physician acceptance is improved. Yet, implementation can be challenging on an institutional level. The Johns Hopkins microsurgical breast reconstruction team identified areas of dogmatic dissonance during 3 focus groups to formalize an enhanced recovery pathway for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Six microsurgeons used nominal group technique to reach consensus. Four discussion points were identified: multidisciplinary buy-in, venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemophylaxis, early feeding, and dietary restrictions. Evidence-based recommendations and our enhanced recovery after surgery protocol are provided.
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 | 0.124 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".