Preoperative Computed Tomographic Angiogram Measurement of Abdominal Muscles Is a Valuable Risk Assessment for Bulge Formation after Microsurgical Abdominal Free Flap Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major shortcoming associated with abdominal tissue breast reconstruction is long-term abdominal wall morbidity. Although abdominal muscle size on computed tomographic angiography has been correlated with morbidity following many abdominal operations, it has not been studied for breast reconstruction. Therefore, the authors evaluated the association between preoperative computed tomography angiography-derived measurements of abdominal core muscles and postoperative abdominal wall morbidity after abdominal tissue breast reconstruction. METHODS: In this retrospective matched case-control study of women who underwent microsurgical abdominal flap breast reconstruction at one institution between January 2011 and June 2015, the authors evaluated all cases of postoperative bulge/hernia, matched by type of abdominal flap and body mass index in a ratio of 1:2 to controls without bulge/hernia. The authors obtained morphometric measurements of abdominal core muscles on preoperative computed tomographic angiographs. Using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions, the authors examined the effects of clinical risk factors and computed tomographic angiography morphometric measurements on postoperative bulge/hernia formation. RESULTS: Of the 589 patients who underwent abdominal free flap breast reconstruction, symptomatic bulges/hernias were identified in 35 patients (5.9 percent). When compared to the 70 matched controls, multivariable analysis showed that decreased area of rectus abdominis muscle (OR, 0.18; p < 0.01) and increased inter-rectus abdominis distance (OR, 1.14; p < 0.01) on computed tomographic angiography were significant risk factors associated with postoperative bulge/hernia. CONCLUSION: Preoperative computed tomographic angiography allows objective measurements of the patient's abdominal muscle anatomy that provide valuable prognostic information on the risk of bulge/hernia formation following abdominally based microsurgical breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".