Decreasing Expander Breast Infection: A New Drain Care Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk factors for expander reconstruction infection are well known. However, drain use as a risk factor for the development of infection is unclear. OBJECTIVE To review a simple method for drain use to help reduce rates of infection in expander breast reconstruction. METHODS Two hundred consecutive single-surgeon (JDM) immediate first-stage expander breast reconstructions were retrospectively reviewed. The records were reviewed for history and physical examination, intraoperative technique, perioperative management, adjuvant therapy, and outcome with respect to expander infection necessitating premature explantation within the first eight weeks. Infection was defined on clinical basis, with or without culture positivity. All expanders (Mentor, USA) were the same model (textured, port-integrated and biodimensional). Two consecutive series of reconstructions were then created. The first series included 177 reconstructions while the second series included 23 reconstructions. Unlike the first series, the second series introduced a protocol in which all reconstructions received mupirocin 2% cream to the drain sites and all drains were removed at the end of the first week. Additionally, in the second series, all expanders were secluded from direct in vivo contact with the closed suction drain either by the use of an intervening Alloderm sling (LifeCell Corporation, USA, 15 of 23 breasts) or by subdermally tunnelling the drain superficial to an adequate fatty subcutaneous layer (eight of 23 breasts). RESULTS Patients who developed infection in the first series and all patients in the second series shared statistically the same level of aggregate risk factors (P=0.531). The infection rate (5.65%, 10 infections in 177 breasts) in the first series was statistically greater than in the second series (0%, 0 in 23 breasts, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS The present study found that percutaneous closed suction drains do serve as an increased risk for expander infection. However, early results indicate that in vivo protection of the expander with Alloderm or subdermal tunnelling, topical antibiotic ointment use and early drain removal may significantly reduce expander infection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".