Outcomes of Various Techniques of Abdominal Fascia Closure after TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".