Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction vs TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction: Solving Problems in a More Simple Way
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The surgical management of breast cancer is clearly evolving towards less invasive procedures. We are turning away from high priced medicine and are turning toward solving problems in more practical, simple and inexpensive ways. The purpose of this study was to evaluate immediate breast reconstruction with expanders and implants versus pedicled TRAM Flaps in terms of costs, complication rates, revision rates, operating room time, length of hospital stay and number of secondary procedures. Methods: A review of 152 immediate breast reconstructions over a 10 year period from april 2000 and December 2010 performed at our Institution, reconstructive techniques included TRAM Flaps in 70 patients and tissue expanders followed by implants in 82 patients. Results: In the TRAM Flap group the mean operative time was 5.1 hours, the mean length of hospital stay was 4.2 days and revision surgeries were performed in 6 patients (8.5%). In the implant based group the mean operative time was 2.6 hours (including the mastectomy), the mean length of hospital stay was 1.9 days and revision surgeries were performed in 6 patients (7.3%). On the basis of this review of autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction in a 10 year period with a mean follow up time of 5.1 years for both groups, prosthetic reconstruction was significantly less expensive.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".