The Impact of Postoperative Expansion Initiation Timing on Breast Expander Capsular Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the first stage of expander-to-implant breast reconstruction, postoperative expansion is classically initiated at 10 to 14 days (conventional approach). The authors hypothesized that it may be beneficial to wait 6 weeks postoperatively before initiating serial expansion (delayed approach). Clinical and ultrastructural periprosthetic capsule analysis is first required before determining whether a delayed approach ultimately improves capsular tissue adherence and expansion process predictability. METHODS: Patients undergoing two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction were enrolled prospectively in this study. During expander-to-implant exchange, the clinical presence of "Velcro" effect, biofilm, and double capsule was noted. Periprosthetic capsule samples were also sent for scanning electron microscopic observation of three parameters: surface relief, cellularity, and biofilm. Samples were divided into four groups for data analysis (group 1, conventional/Biocell; group 2, delayed/Biocell; group 3, conventional/Siltex; and group 4, delayed/Siltex). RESULTS: Fifty-six breast reconstructions were included. Each group comprised between 13 and 15 breasts. In group 1, no cases exhibited the Velcro effect and there was a 53.8 percent incidence of both biofilm and double capsule. In group 2, all cases demonstrated the Velcro effect and there were no incidences of biofilm or double capsule. Group 3 and group 4 cases did not exhibit a Velcro effect or double-capsule formation; however, biofilm was present in up to 20.0 percent. All group 2 samples revealed more pronounced three-dimensional relief on scanning electron microscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in expansion protocols can lead to observable modifications in periprosthetic capsular architecture. There may be real benefits to delaying expander inflation until 6 weeks postoperatively with Biocell expanders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".