A new option of reconstruction after extensive chest wall resection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chest wall reconstruction plays an important role in the outcomes of chest wall resection. However, there being a huge variety of materials at disposable, the best option has not yet been well defined. The Vitagraft® is a synthetic and absorbable material, that works as an osteoinduction and osteoconduction for bone regeneration. It consists of a β-phase Tricalcium Phosphate Ceramic (β-TCP) and the Polylactic Glycolic Acid Polymer (PLGA). Therefore, this study intends to assess the safety of Vitagraft® use in the chest wall. METHODS: A prospective study, in which the patient's chest was reconstructed with Vitagraft®. Each patient was followed after the procedure for at least three months. The following variables were considered: KPS, ECOG, preoperative treatment, defect size, myocutaneous flap, the time between surgeries, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Eight resections were performed due to tumor findings. One reconstruction was a treatment for sternal cleft, another for Poland's syndrome, and finally as a consequence of late sternal dehiscence. Primary closure was performed in 63.6 % of the patients. Vitagraft® was used in association with mesh in eight cases. Reoperation was required in two cases, and prosthesis removal for one of them. Respiratory failure and major systemic complications were not evidenced. CONCLUSION: In the present study, the first to assess Vitagraft® in chest wall reconstruction, the second operation was necessary for 28 %, and removal was mandatory for 14 %. Until now, chest postoperative tomography has been showing good prosthesis biocompatibility. The authors need further details about the ossification time especially relating to the size of the resection.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it