Breast-Feeding after Inferior Pedicle Reduction Mammaplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breast-feeding practices of a series of postpartum women, who had undergone prior reduction mammaplasty by means of an inferior pedicle approach, are reported in this retrospective study. Also identified are the factors that influenced the decision to breast-feed postoperatively. From a patient pool of 544 individuals who elected to have reduction mammaplasty between 1984 and 1994 (age range, 15 to 35 years), 334 could be contacted and interviewed by means of telephone by using a standardized questionnaire. Successful breast-feeding was defined as the ability to feed for a duration equal to or greater than 2 weeks. Seventy-eight patients had children after their breast reduction surgery. Fifteen of the 78 patients (19.2 percent) breast-fed exclusively, 8 (10.3 percent) breast-fed with formula supplementation, 14 (17.9 percent) had an unsuccessful breast-feeding attempt, and 41 (52.6 percent) did not attempt breast-feeding. Of the 41 patients not attempting to breast-feed, 9 patients did so as a direct consequence of discouragement by a health care professional. Further reasons for feeding with supplementation, having an unsuccessful attempt, and not attempting to breast-feed are presented. Of the 78 women who had children postoperatively, a total of 27 were discouraged from breast-feeding by medical professionals with only 8 of the 27 (29.6 percent) subsequently attempting, despite this recommendation. In comparison, 26 patients were encouraged to breast-feed; nineteen (73.1 percent) of them did subsequently attempt breast-feeding. This rate is statistically significant by using a chi2 test with 1 df(p = 0.0016). Postpartum breast engorgement and lactation was experienced by 31 of the 41 patients not attempting to breast-feed. Of these 31 patients, 19 believed that they would have been able to breast-feed due to the extent of breast engorgement and lactation experienced. Given the use of an inferior flap mammaplasty technique and patient encouragement, the possibility for breast-feeding after reduction mammaplasty exists. This prevalence falls near the breast-feeding rate found in the population not having undergone breast surgery, according to an article in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".