Postoperative Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Breast Reduction Mammoplasty: A Single Centre Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Breast reduction mammoplasty (BRM) is a common procedure performed by plastic surgeons treating patients with hypermastia. It is customary to give preoperative prophylactic intravenous antibiotics for BRM, followed by several days of postoperative prophylactic oral antibiotics, despite the lack of evidence of their effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of prophylactic postoperative antibiotics is more effective in preventing SSIs in comparison to a single dose of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in BRM. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 124 elective BRM cases by a single senior plastic surgeon was completed. Two study groups were formed based on the location of surgery and each group was assigned a different antibiotic regimen. The first antibiotic regimen consisted of a single preoperative intravenous dose of antibiotics (group 1), while the second regimen consisted of a preoperative intravenous dose followed by a 5-day course of oral antibiotics (group 2). Results: Overall SSI rate was 5.6%. Infection rate in group 1 was 8.1% in comparison to 3.2% for group 2 ( P value .44). Overall, the incidence of complications was 29.0%; 38.7% in group 1 and 19.4% in group 2 ( P value .03). Complications consisted of 35 cases of delayed wound healing, 7 SSIs and 2 hematomas requiring evacuation. Conclusion: Study results demonstrated that the use of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics for BRM had no significant effect on the rate of SSIs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".