Sensibility following Innervated Free TRAM Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Part II. Innervation Improves Patient-Rated Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoring sensory innervation may be a useful adjunct in free flap head and neck reconstruction but, as yet, has not been shown to improve outcomes of breast reconstruction. The authors' previous study demonstrated objectively improved sensation in a group of innervated transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap breast reconstruction patients relative to noninnervated flaps. This study compared patient-rated outcomes of free TRAM breast reconstruction in innervated versus noninnervated flaps. METHODS: Twenty-seven women were randomized prospectively to undergo either innervated or noninnervated free TRAM flap breast reconstruction. For innervated flaps, the T10 intercostal nerve was harvested with the TRAM flap and neurotized to the T4 sensory nerve at the recipient site. Three validated outcome tools were administered after surgery: the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast. Results were correlated with previously reported objective sensibility outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen of 27 women returned their questionnaires a mean 48 months after free TRAM flap reconstruction. Demographic analysis revealed no significant differences in patient age, height, smoking, radiation therapy, and nipple-areola complex reconstruction between randomized patient groups. There was a statistically significant improvement in all three measures in patients who were randomized to receive innervated free TRAM flaps compared with those receiving noninnervated flaps. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that innervation of free TRAM flaps used for breast reconstruction not only improves sensibility but also has a positive effect on patient-rated quality of life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".