Autologous Breast Reconstruction in Women Older Than 65 Years Versus Women Younger Than 65 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous breast reconstruction has been shown to have fewer complications and superior outcomes. In the elderly patient population, a paucity of literature on the subject may render the surgeon reluctant to recommend or perform such a procedure. The objective of this study was to compare complications and satisfaction after abdominally based breast reconstruction in patients older than versus younger than 65 years. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed with data from 5 North American centers from 2002 to 2012. Patients who underwent autologous reconstruction were identified retrospectively, and chart review was performed. The BREAST-Q questionnaire was sent to these patients via mail. Patient variables, operative outcomes and BREASTQ results were analyzed. The Pearson χ² and analysis of variance tests were used. Given the number of analyses, a more conservative α of 0.01 was used for each comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1809 patients were included with 1751 patients younger than 65 years and 58 patients aged 65 years or older. Analysis of postoperative complications showed no significant differences between the age groups, though there was a trend toward higher seroma development (17.2% vs 8.1%; P = 0.013) and infection (19.0% vs 10.0%; P = 0.028) in the older group with statistical significance set at P less than 0.01 to account for multiple comparisons. A total of 1809 BREAST-Q surveys were sent with a response rate of 52.5%. Patient satisfaction results were equally high between the 2 age groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to compare patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction older than and younger than 65 years within the same cohort. Women older than 65 years represent a minority and constituted only 3% of patients in this multicenter 10-year review. We have shown that with careful patient selection, abdominally based autologous reconstruction should be considered in the elderly patient population because it is well tolerated and achieves high patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".