Rupture of a Breast Tissue Expander Due to Chest Wall Exostosis: Case Report and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of device failure or rupture during tissue expansion is rare, and the etiology of device rupture is most commonly idiopathic; however, a multitude of potential etiologies have been reported including direct trauma, device over-expansion beyond manufacturer recommendations, capsular contracture, compressive forces during medical imaging studies, iatrogenic device damage during operative placement of the device or iatrogenic rupture during the process of filling the device. The authors report a case of device failure of the posterior wall of a tissue expander used for routine implant-based breast reconstruction that was attributed to bony exostosis of the anterior chest wall. They explore the relative incidence of bony exostosis-related and all-cause tissue expander rupture in peer-reviewed published literature. The present report illustrates the importance of evaluating the tissue quality of the periprosthetic capsule and pocket following a device failure to ensure that chest wall exostosis, a potential cause of further device failure, is not present.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".