Safety of Tissue Expander/Implant versus Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer should be informed by evidence-based knowledge, such as complication rates. The authors compared the safety of tissue expander/implant reconstruction with that of autologous abdominal tissue reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified peer-reviewed studies published from January of 2000 to October of 2012 that compared tissue expander/implant against autologous abdominal tissue reconstruction in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases. Two reviewers independently screened all reports and selected the relevant articles using specific inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the relevant articles using a standardized abstraction form. RESULTS: Fourteen observational studies were identified that included more than 3000 reconstructed breasts. Significant differences were found between these two approaches. The relative risk associated with reconstructive failure favored autologous abdominal tissue (relative risk, 0.14; 95 percent CI, 0.06 to 0.32; I = 0 percent). Surgical-site infection was significantly lower in autologous abdominal tissue reconstruction compared with tissue expander/implant (relative risk, 0.37; 95 percent CI, 0.25 to 0.55; I = 0 percent), although skin or flap necrosis was higher in autologous abdominal tissue reconstruction compared with tissue expander/implant (relative risk, 2.79; 95 percent CI, 1.87 to 4.17). Studies were of low to moderate quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that tissue expander/implant reconstruction has a higher risk of reconstructive failure and surgical-site infection compared with autologous abdominal tissue reconstruction. With the lack of long-term safety studies on different approaches to breast reconstruction, additional long-term comparative studies are needed to support evidence-based decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
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 | 0.029 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".