Sensibility following Innervated Free TRAM Flap for Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap has proven to be a reliable means of recreating the aesthetic breast form after mastectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether neurotization of the free TRAM flap improved sensation of the reconstructed breast. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients undergoing 37 free TRAM flap reconstructions were randomized to receive either an innervated (12 patients, 18 breasts) or a noninnervated flap (15 patients, 19 breasts). A nerve repair between the T10 intercostal of the TRAM flap and the anterior sensory branch of the fourth intercostal nerve was performed for innervation. Sensory testing (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, hot-cold discrimination, two-point discrimination) was performed by one blinded examiner in a standardized pattern. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 16 months. Demographic analysis revealed no significant differences in patient age, height, smoking, radiation therapy, and nipple-areola reconstruction between patient groups (p > 0.3). Patients in the noninnervated group, however, were heavier (p = 0.03). Preoperative sensation was not significantly different in the noninnervated and innervated groups. Postoperative pressure threshold and temperature discrimination were significantly improved in the innervated flaps (p < 0.05). Noninnervated flaps displayed a pattern of increasing sensibility from the center toward the periphery while innervated flaps regained sensation throughout. CONCLUSIONS: Innervation of the free TRAM flap provides improved sensation to the reconstructed breast and is a simple adjunct to breast 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".