Efficacy of a Dual-ring Wound Protector for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections After Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Intrabiliary Stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a dual-ring wound protector for preventing incisional surgical site infection (SSI) among patients with preoperative biliary stents undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study was a parallel, dual-arm, double-blind randomized controlled trial. Adult patients with a biliary stent undergoing elective PD at 2 tertiary care institutions were included (February 2013 to May 2016). Patients were randomly assigned to receive a surgical dual-ring wound protector or no wound protector, and also the current standard of care. The main outcome measure was incisional SSI, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, within 30 days of the index operation. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were recruited (mean age 67.2 years; standard deviation 12.9; 65% male). No significant differences were identified between the intervention and control groups (age, sex, body mass index, preoperative comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, prestent cholangitis). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of incisional SSI in the wound protector group (21.1% vs 44.0%; relative risk reduction 52%; P = 0.010). Patients with completed PD also displayed a decrease in incisional SSI with use of the wound protector compared with those palliated surgically (27.3% vs 48.7%; P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis did not identify any significant modifying factor relationships (estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, hospital site, etc.) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among adult patients with intrabiliary stents, the use of a dual-ring wound protector during PD significantly reduces the risk of incisional SSI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".