MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077796371 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e318199ef4f

Outcomes of Various Techniques of Abdominal Fascia Closure after TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction

2009· article· en· W2077796371 on OpenAlexaff
J. Boehmler, Charles E. Butler, Steven J. Kronowitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFasciaClosure (psychology)Breast reconstructionSurgeryBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the optimal technique for closure of the abdominal fascia after transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap breast reconstruction. The authors reviewed outcomes with various techniques to identify the optimal one. METHODS: The authors reviewed the charts of 81 consecutive patients who underwent TRAM flap breast reconstruction at their institution from 2002 to 2005. Various amounts of anterior rectus sheath fascia were harvested with the TRAM flap. Patients were divided into five groups based on fascia closure technique: (1) human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft, (2) human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft with primary closure of overlying anterior rectus sheath, (3) polypropylene mesh inlay graft, (4) polypropylene mesh inlay graft with primary closure, and (5) primary closure. For comparative analysis, three additional groups were created: all human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft (groups 1 and 2), all mesh (groups 3 and 4), and all inlay (groups 1 and 3). Rates of donor-site complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: Rates of abdominal bulge formation were as follows: overall, 14.8 percent; human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft alone, 31 percent; human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft plus primary closure, 20 percent; mesh alone, 10 percent; mesh plus primary closure, 5 percent; and primary closure alone, 5 percent. Rates of any complication (including bulge) were as follows: overall, 23.5 percent; human acellular dermal matrix bridging inlay graft alone, 42 percent; human acellular dermal matrix plus primary closure, 20 percent; mesh alone, 30 percent; mesh plus primary closure, 10 percent; and primary closure alone, 5 percent. Time to bulge formation was longer for all human acellular dermal matrix versus all mesh (p = 0.021. Time to any complication was longer for all inlay versus primary closure alone (p = 0.048), human acellular dermal matrix alone versus primary closure alone (p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: For abdominal fascia repair after TRAM flap breast reconstruction, primary closure, when feasible, is preferable to an inlay graft; polypropylene mesh is preferable to human acellular dermal matrix if an inlay graft is required; adding primary closure to a mesh or human acellular dermal matrix inlay graft reduces bulge formation and other complications; and bulge occurs later with human acellular dermal matrix than with synthetic mesh.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207