Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: We would like to thank Dr. Atiyeh and colleagues for their comments regarding our article. All patients included in this study underwent immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. Mastectomy incisions were always designed horizontally in an ellipse shape by the oncologic surgeon to include the nipple-areola complex. Rapidly initiated expansion is certainly common practice and well documented as safe in the literature.1 However, regardless of one’s specific surgical technique and treatment approach, expander-to-implant breast reconstructions maintain nonnegligible complication rates.2,3 As stated in Table 2 of the article, expander implants were filled to exert reasonable tension onto the mastectomy skin flaps. This intraoperative fill typically ranged from 100 to 200 cc, representing a mean of 29.7 percent of expander implant total volume in our series. At our institution, patients with an adequate amount and quality of breast skin following mastectomy typically undergo reconstruction with a single-stage direct-to-implant approach; such patients were not included in this study. Patients with relative skin shortage undergo reconstruction in essentially a two-stage fashion. Consequently, the paucity or abundance of breast skin did not play a role in our decision to formally investigate the delayed expansion approach described in our study. However, as noted in the article, wound healing principles and anecdotal surgeon experience were key factors behind the suggestion of the delayed approach. Our goal is certainly not to advocate for the delayed approach at all costs; we simply wanted to see whether the clinical and ultrastructural endpoints outlined demonstrated differences depending on the expansion strategy used. From our perspective, the study we designed was necessary to ascertain whether larger scale clinical studies based on a delayed approach were needed and justifiable. The goal was never to put into question the relative safety of rapid expansion, but rather to explore the potential benefits of a delayed approach in relation to Biocell and Siltex expander implants. In fact, our study demonstrated lower incidences of biofilm and double capsule and greater ultrastructural capsular stability in the delayed expansion Biocell group. Although Atiyeh et al. write that cephalad migration of the Biocell expander in our study is of potential concern, our clinical and scanning electron microscopy observations seem to suggest otherwise. Lastly, Atiyeh et al. suggest that superior aesthetic results are achievable with dual-plane or subcutaneous placement of the expander implant. This is not a common strategy used by surgeons at our institution; especially in the context of breast radiation therapy, we believe that total implant coverage, whether by total muscle or with acellular dermal matrix as an adjunct, is essential. Acellular dermal matrix products have indeed significantly changed the treatment paradigm of implant-based breast reconstruction. The scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of such products is certainly growing. At our institution, acellular dermal matrix products are currently used only selectively for breast reconstruction because of the associated costs and lingering concerns of complications such as infection and seroma. DISCLOSURE Dr. Danino is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. Neither of the other authors has any commercial associations or financial interests to declare with respect to any of the information or products presented in this communication. Operational study costs were partially supported by an Allergan, Inc., industry research grant. Jean-Philippe Giot, M.D., Ph.D. Laurence S. Paek, M.D. M. Alain Danino, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Montreal Hospital Center Université de Montréal Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».