Complications Associated With Breast Reconstruction Using a Perforator Flap Compared With a Free TRAM Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief This study evaluated the recipient and donor site complications associated with breast reconstruction using a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEAP) flap compared with a free TRAM flap. The charts of 108 patients who underwent breast reconstruction using these techniques were reviewed. There were 130 flaps. Patients with free TRAM flaps had a significantly longer hospital stay (P = 0.003). There were significantly more cases of fat necrosis in the unilateral DIEAP flaps (P = 0.001). In patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index >25 kg/m2), there were significantly more breast complications (P = 0.006). There were more cases of abdominal flap necrosis at the donor site in smokers (P = 0.018) and the diabetic patients (P = 0.013). This study suggests that postoperative complications are related to patient comorbidities, and personal factors and should be considered when selecting the most appropriate reconstructive option. A comparison study of 130 unilateral and bilateral free TRAM flaps and DIEAP flaps for breast reconstruction showed longer hospital stays for TRAM flaps, greater fat necrosis in unilateral DIEAP flaps, and greater abdominal flap necrosis in smokers and diabetics.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".