Lack of association between breast reconstructive surgery and the development of chronic pain after mastectomy: A propensity matched retrospective cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare if mastectomy with reconstructive surgery had greater incidence of chronic pain compared to mastectomy surgery alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort. Patients who underwent mastectomies with and without reconstruction responded to the modified short form Brief Pain Inventory and the short form McGill pain questionnaire to identify and characterize pain at least 6 months after the surgical procedure. Propensity matching analysis was used to control for covariates differences in the study groups. RESULTS: 310 subjects were included and 132 patients (43%) reported the presence of chronic pain. After propensity score matching to adjust for covariate imbalances, the incidence of chronic pain in the mastectomy group who had additional surgery for breast reconstruction was not different compared to the group who had mastectomy surgery alone, 26 out of 68 (38%) and 27 out of 68 (39%), respectively P = 1.0. Among patients who had chronic pain, breast reconstruction did not increase the intensity of worst pain in the last 24 h, median (IQR) of 2 (1-5) compared to 4 (1-5) in the no reconstruction group, P = 0.41. Type of reconstruction (breast implants vs. flap tissue) did not result in greater incidence and/or intensity of chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not result in a greater incidence of chronic pain compared to mastectomy alone. Female patients undergoing breast cancer surgery should not incorporate chronic pain in their decision to undergo reconstructive surgery after mastectomy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".