No abstract

Introduction Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are now commonly used for breast reconstruction surgery. There are various products available: ADMs derived from human (HADM), porcine (PADM), or bovine (BADM) sources. Detailed long-term follow-up studies are necessary to detect differences in complication rates between these products. Material and Methods From 2010 to 2015, forty-one patients underwent 52 ADM-breast reconstructions in our clinic, including oncologic breast reconstructions and breast augmentation revisions (n = 52). 15x HADMs (Epiflex®/DIZG), 21x PADMs (Strattice®/LifeCell), and 16x BADMs (Tutomesh®/RTI Surgical) were implanted. Retrospective data collection with median follow-up of 36 months (range: 12–54 months) was performed. Results Overall complication rate was 17% after ADM implantation (HADM: 7%; PADM: 14%; BADM: 31%). In a composite endpoint of complications and Red Breast Syndrome, a lower event probability was observed between BADMs, PADMs, and HADMs (44%, 19%, and 7%, resp.; p = 0.01 for the trend). Furthermore, capsular contracture occurred in 6%, more frequently as compared to the current literature. Conclusions When ADM-based reconstruction is indicated, the authors suggest primarily the use of HADMs and secondary the use of PADMs. It is shown that BADMs have the highest complication probability within our patient cohort; nevertheless, BADMs convey physical advantages in terms of flexibility and better aesthetic outcomes. The indication for the use of ADMs should be filled for each case individually.

Four questions are asked about the use of social skills training procedures with mentally handicapped people. The first is, 'What are social skills in the context of mental handicap?', and it is suggested that they involve a complex array of perceptual, cognitive, motor and motivational processes, all of which can be disrupted due to various problems common among mentally handicapped people. The second question, 'What changes do social skills training programmes aim to achieve?', leads to the conclusion that most programmes have concentrated on motor, and to some extent on motivational processes, at the expense of perceptuo-cognitive ones. In asking, 'Have the programmes been successful in achieving these changes?', the answer is a guarded 'yes', given the limited aims of most investigators. Generalization to the natural environment has only occasionally been established, though it is often not measured. The fourth question is, 'What is the clinical significance of the changes obtained by such programmes and how can future ones be made more clinically relevant?'. The answer to the first part of the question is that, in general, their clinical utility has not been established. Future programmes could be made more clinically relevant if they were integrated with strategies for producing more benign and stimulating environments for mentally handicapped people.

No abstract

Usability researchers and product designers stand to benefit by minimizing costs (e.g., time, overhead, recruitment costs) related to usability research. Several potential discount methods for collecting subjective data exist. This study compared four methods of collecting satisfaction data using the After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ). Use-Then-Measure (rating immediately after use), was used as a comparison group for the performance of three other methods: Retrospective (delayed measurement based on past use), Prospective (judging a product before use), and Watching-Others (evaluating a product based on video footage). Users were asked to use three different products (a website, a can opener, and a digital timer) and rate their satisfaction with the products using the ASQ. The Retrospective method produced mean ASQ scores that were statistically indistinguishable from the average ASQ scores produced by Use-Then-Measure. Both the Prospective and Watching-Others conditions generated mean ASQ scores higher than Use-Than-Measure. Our results, consistent with previous research, support Retrospective assessment as an alternative for collecting subjective ratings of usability. While our results did not support Watching-Others or Prospective methods, more research is needed before completely ruling them out as viable methods.