The cephalic and external jugular veins: Important alternative recipient vessels in left‐sided microvascular breast reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The internal mammary and thoracodorsal vessels are the standard recipient sites in microsurgical breast reconstruction. We review our series of venous outflow alternatives when these vessels are inadequate or unusable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all free breast reconstructions was performed from July 2003 through December 2005. Outcomes were measured with regard to re-exploration, flap failure, and fat necrosis, with attention to the timing and side of reconstruction, as well as the presence or absence of radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 141 free breast reconstructions were performed during the study period. In seven cases (5%), alternative venous outflow vessels were selected (cephalic or external jugular vein). Nine anastamotic complications occurred, all of which involved the left internal mammary group (statistically significant for venous thrombosis, P = 0.0063) and three flaps failed. All cephalic and external jugular veins remained patent with no flap failures or fat necrosis within this group. CONCLUSION: The cephalic vein and external jugular vein are excellent alternatives for venous outflow in free breast reconstruction if neither the internal mammary nor thoracodorsal veins are sufficient, especially in left-sided reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".