In Reply: So the Bone Flap Hit the Floor, Now What? An In Vitro Comparison of Cadaveric Bone Flap Decontamination Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We thank Dr Afshari for his letter1 commending our recently published manuscript “So the Bone Flap Hit the Floor, Now What? An In Vitro Comparison of Cadaveric Bone Flap Decontamination Procedures.”2 We read his commentary with great interest. Dr Afshari raised excellent points regarding real-life microbiological and surgical considerations. We agree with the highlighted limitations. Bone flaps removed for infectious reasons or which had a breach in storage protocol were excluded from this study. Routine flap culture is not a common practice in our hospital, and flaps are typically reimplanted as long as no breach in sterility is observed. We therefore considered all flaps as sterile. The study was performed to mirror our clinical practice: control flaps represent flaps that would have been reimplanted, regardless of their “real” initial contamination status. It should be noted that all flaps were subjected to all decontamination protocols, so even if a flap was indeed nonsterile, it would technically have affected all decontamination procedures equally. We agree that foreign materials such as plates and screws add a layer of complexity and risk of infection through biofilm formation. More studies would be needed to assess our proposed disinfection method on such materials long term. The risk of infections is always a balance between bacterial load, proliferation, and host factors such as the immune response (which itself can be iatrogenically modulated). Although our protocols attempt to limit bacterial count, it does not address host factors which, given the variable and mostly low contamination observed, might in reality be the most critical element. Cranioplasty wound infection can have an incidence up to 26.43%3 even when performed electively in a completely sterile environment. Although undetected contaminations in our protocol might theoretically lead to a delayed, chronic infection, it is also possible that a proper immune response would have completely cleared the bone flaps even in the absence of a decontamination protocol. The goal, therefore, was to minimize patient harm by balancing safety and simplicity. We believe the risk of a persistent infection following a 99.98% effective decontamination protocol will be less than the risk of infection associated with wound closure, synthetic implant creation, and a—third—wound reopening in an additional setting to implant a synthetic flap. At this point, the wound will become the most likely point of failure. It is always a question of balance, as risk cannot be completely eliminated. Given that a real clinical trial is obviously not feasible, we believe our study is as close as we can get to the truth in this matter unless significant investment was made into a large animal model study.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".