Intraoperative Autoderm Decontamination for Use in Immediate Single-stage Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in direct-to-implant breast cancer reconstruction is the standard of care due to superior cosmetic results and decreased capsular contracture, but can be cost prohibitive. Although more economical, using patient's own dermis ("Autoderm") instead of ADM has undescribed sterility. Sterility is essential, as bacterial contamination may cause infection and capsular contraction. This study aimed to determine the sterility and optimal decontamination protocol of Autoderm. METHODS: A prospective controlled study of 140 samples from 20 DIEP (deep inferior epigastric perforator) breast cancer reconstruction patients was performed. Seven de-epithelialized dermal samples (2 × 1 cm) per patient were collected from excess abdominal tissue (6 decontamination protocols and one control). Samples were submerged in povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, or cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin for 15 minutes; half of the samples were agitated (150 rpm) for 15 minutes, and half were not. The control was normal saline without agitation. The solution was removed, and the tissue was sent for aerobic colony count cultures. Patient's demographic data and complications were also collected. RESULTS: Of 140 samples, 3 of 20 non-agitated povidone-iodine and 1 of 20 control samples had aerobic bacterial growth. All of the other 100 samples from 5 experimental groups (povidone-iodine + agitation, chlorhexidine ± agitation, and cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin ± agitation) had no aerobic bacterial growth. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests povidone-iodine + agitation, chlorhexidine ± agitation, and cefazolin/tobramycin/bacitracin ± agitation are effective at sterilizing de-epithelialized dermis, whereas povidone-iodine without agitation and saline are ineffective. Autoderm with the appropriate decontamination protocol may be a potential sterile alternative to ADM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".