Uneventful versus Successful Reconstruction and Outcome Pathways in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meaningful data to help guide resource allocation for staged tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction are currently lacking. The authors seek to differentiate uneventful from successful reconstruction and identify common outcome pathways and factors that portend a deviation from an uneventful, two-stage, two-operation course. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of expander/implant reconstructions with or without acellular dermal matrix (2003 to 2009) was performed. Related postreconstructive events (including mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, wound dehiscence, cellulitis, explantation, hematoma, and capsular revisions) were assessed for 2 years. Uneventful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years of tissue expander placement without complications, whereas successful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years with or without complications. Factors affecting reconstructive success were analyzed, and patterns of postreconstructive events were summarized as outcome pathways. RESULTS: Four hundred thirteen patients (295 with acellular dermal matrix and 118 without), with 602 breasts (432 with acellular dermal matrix and 170 without) underwent reconstruction. Forty-six percent of patients (48 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 40 percent without), experienced uneventful reconstruction. Reconstructive success was achieved in 337 patients (82 percent; 82.0 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 80.5 percent without), with reconstructive failure occurring in 58 patients. Multiple logistic regression analyses determined that cellulitis, seroma, and skin necrosis (OR, 15.8, 7.7, and 8.4, respectively) were highly predictive of reconstructive failure. The authors identified 10 distinct pathways experienced by tissue expander/implant patients that were characterized by specific postreconstructive events. CONCLUSION: The present study will facilitate discussions among patients, providers, and payers by providing a framework for understanding the myriad outcome pathways in implant-based reconstruction. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".