MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297888622 · doi:10.1177/229255030901700103

Decreasing Expander Breast Infection: A New Drain Care Protocol

2009· article· en· W4297888622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeSurgeryCase seriesBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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