A Comparison of Ipsilateral Pedicled TRAM Flap With and Without Previous Irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Due to concerns for increased complications, there is reluctance to use the ipsilateral pedicled TRAM for breast reconstruction in the presence of previous chest wall irradiation. This study will assess whether the ipsilateral pedicled TRAM is a safe and effective option when the pedicle is part of the irradiation field. Consecutive cases of ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flap procedures from 1997–2003 were reviewed. Patients with and without previous irradiation were compared on several vascular indicators. There were 123 and 124 patients in the irradiated and nonirradiated groups, respectively. These groups were demographically similar, except the nonirradiated group was significantly older. The irradiated group had a significantly higher rate of minor wound problems related to mastectomy flap healing (8.9% versus 1.6%). All other flap vascular complications were equivalent. The ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flap is a safe and effective option for breast reconstruction in an irradiated field in terms of the pedicle to the flap. A comparison study of ipsilateral TRAM flap breast reconstructions on irradiated breasts (n = 123) versus nonirradiated breasts (n = 124) demonstrated a significantly higher rate of minor wound complications on the mastectomy flaps among irradiated breasts but no other differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".