Retrospective Case Review of Capsular Contracture After Two-Stage Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Periprosthetic capsular contracture is a common problem associated with implant-based breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to determine if bacterial colonization of the tissue expander contributes to contracture of the permanent implant. Medical records were reviewed for 86 patients (124 tissue expanders) between 1997 and 2001 in 1 institution. Three specimens taken from the expander were cultured. The overall incidence of colonization was 42.7%; 49.4% (38.8–60.0) of immediate and 28.2% (14.1–42.3) of delayed expanders had at least 1 positive culture site (P = 0.043). The most common organisms were Propionibacterium acnes (57.6%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (31.0%), and Peptostreptococcus (5.8%). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between colonization of the expander and capsular contracture of the permanent prosthesis (P = 0.59). 45.8% (25.9–65.8) of breasts irradiated preoperatively developed contracture versus 14% (7.2–20.8) with no irradiation (P = 0.0013). These results suggest that colonization of the expander occurs frequently, irradiation predisposes to contracture, and colonization did not contribute to secondary implant contracture in this study population. A review of 86 women undergoing 124 tissue-expander breast reconstructions demonstrated bacterial colonization of 42.7% of expanders at the time of removal but no correlation with capsular contracture. Preirradiated breasts showed a 45.8% contracture rate, compared to 14% with no irradiation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".