Effect of drain omission after mastectomy on cosmesis, patient satisfaction and interval to adjuvant therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Omission of closed suction drains in women undergoing simple mastectomy has become the standard in the United Kingdom (UK) with studies demonstrating no difference in symptomatic seroma rates or complications. A theoretical concern is that a large-volume seroma distorts the skin envelope, potentially resulting in inferior long-term postoperative aesthetic appearance and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, the seroma may lead to a delay in adjuvant treatment, in particular, chest wall radiotherapy. There is currently no objective scoring system to evaluate the postoperative appearance after simple mastectomy. METHODS: Patients who had undergone a drainless unilateral simple mastectomy at the Royal Marsden Hospital attending for annual surveillance contralateral mammography between October 2016 and July 2017 were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire and attend medical photography for panel assessment of aesthetic outcome. Patient satisfaction in this cohort was compared with results from the UK National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit (NMBRA) 2011, which was conducted at a time when surgical drains were routinely placed. RESULTS: The proportion of patients satisfied with their appearance was similar to that of NMBRA 2011. BREAST-Q results were in line with the published literature. A panel assessment scoring system for simple mastectomies was developed. There was no difference in delays to adjuvant treatment between the study and NMBRA cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Omission of drains in women undergoing simple mastectomy did not result in inferior aesthetic outcomes or lower patient satisfaction, nor did it result in delay to adjuvant treatment. BREAST-Q results were in line with the literature. A panel assessment scoring system for simple mastectomy was developed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".