MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965808625 · doi:10.1111/1759-7714.13157

Drainage tube hole suture improvement: Removal‐free stitches

2019· article· en· W2965808625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rui Fu, Jia‐Tao Zhang, Song Dong, Ying Chen, Chao Zhang, Wen‐Fang Tang, Jin Xia, Qiang Nie, Wen‐Zhao Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueThoracic Cancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineFibrous jointDrainageTube (container)SurgeryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical method improvements aim to optimize the patient experience. The problem of healing of the drainage tube hole has not received attention and is of concern because it can plague patient recovery. In this article we report on how we have improved the method of suturing the drainage tube hole and explore the safety and effectiveness of this method. Between December 2017 to August 2018, 102 patients underwent thoracoscopic lung resection (single port or single utility port) using different methods of suturing drainage tube holes. The intervention group received improved methods with subcuticular and intradermal suture and removal-free stitches, whilst the control group received a conventional mattress suture and fixed chest tube. A preset line was left to tie knots and close the hole after the removal of the chest tube. The stitches were removed 7-12 days after surgery. The baseline clinical features of the patients were subsequently analyzed. The objective and subjective conditions of scars were evaluated using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) at one month after surgery. The intervention group (n = 71) and control group (n = 31) had balanced baseline clinical characteristics. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of three-day postoperative pain and postoperative hospital stay. In the intervention group, three patients (4.23%) had wound splitting that required re-suturing, which was better than five patients (16.13%) in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of pleural fluid outflow, wound infection, post-removal pneumothorax, chest tube prolapse and incisional hernia were not different between the two groups. We conclude that the objective and subjective evaluation results of scars were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), and the experimental group was superior to the control group. A balanced result between aesthetic appearance and safety as regards video-assisted thoracic surgery can be achieved through the chest tube hole improved suture method. This method also improves the patient's recovery experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoracic CancerSame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207