Donor-Site Hernia Repair in Abdominal Flap Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors investigated hernia repair rates following pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction in English National Health Service hospitals. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent pedicled TRAM, free TRAM, or DIEP flap breast reconstruction procedures in English National Health Service hospitals between April of 2006 and March of 2012 were identified using the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Women who underwent mastectomy without reconstruction acted as controls, and hernia repair rates were calculated for all four groups. Multiple Cox regression was performed to estimate the relative risk of hernia repair among the reconstruction groups, adjusted for age, obesity, previous abdominal surgery, reconstruction year, and bilateral flap harvest. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2012, 7929 women had a DIEP or TRAM flap breast reconstruction. The overall hernia repair rate within 3 years was 2.45 percent after abdominal flap breast reconstruction, and 0.28 percent among the 15,679 women who had mastectomy only. Mean time to hernia repair following an abdominal flap harvest was 17.7 months. Compared with DIEP flaps, free and pedicled TRAM flap procedures were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.81 (95 percent CI, 1.24 to 2.64) and 2.89 (95 percent CI, 1.91 to 4.37), respectively. The only independent risk factor for hernia repair was age older than 60 years (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction carries a small risk of subsequent donor-site hernia repair. The rates herein can be used to inform patients and to assess quality of care across service providers. 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".