Efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy blowhole placement in alleviating severe subcutaneous emphysema and associated transient blindness following video-assisted thorascopic surgery: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy is widely used for treating lung cancer, but severe subcutaneous emphysema can be a rare complication, leading to distressing symptoms such as pain, temporary blindness, and voice changes. Traditional management strategies often require prolonged treatment, and blowhole incisions can result in infection and discomfort. This case series explores the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) applied via a unilateral blowhole incision to treat severe subcutaneous emphysema post-VATS lobectomy. In three cases, NPWT facilitated rapid resolution of pain, restored vision, and resolved voice changes within 8 h. No infection-related complications occurred. This approach not only accelerates recovery and alleviates patient discomfort but also reduces the burden on caregivers and healthcare teams. NPWT should be considered a valuable addition to the management of severe subcutaneous emphysema, improving patient outcomes and enhancing postoperative care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".