MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617514223 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003388

A Review of 101 Consecutive Subcutaneous Mastectomies and Male Chest Contouring Using the Concentric Circular and Free Nipple Graft Techniques in Female-to-Male Transgender Patients

2017· review· en· W2617514223 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryScarsConcentricGynecomastiaMastectomyBreast cancerInternal medicineCancerGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many techniques exist for subcutaneous mastectomy in female-to-male transgender patients. The authors review outcomes for two techniques and present an algorithm to aid surgeons in technique selection. METHODS: One hundred one consecutive female-to-male transgender patients undergoing subcutaneous mastectomy using the concentric circular or free nipple graft technique were retrospectively reviewed. An algorithm for procedure selection was created using classification and regression tree analysis. Aesthetic results (nipple-areola complex, scar, and chest contour) were also independently reviewed. RESULTS: Two hundred two subcutaneous mastectomies were performed (concentric circular, 92 breasts; free nipple graft, 110 breasts). The overall complication rate was 21.3 percent, with 6.4 percent requiring operative intervention (free nipple graft, 1 percent; concentric circular, 13 percent; p < 0.001). The overall revision rate was 23.8 percent (free nipple graft, 12.7 percent; concentric circular, 37.0 percent; p < 0.001). In the concentric circular group, there were 3.3 times the odds of total complications (p = 0.03) and 4.0 times the odds of revision surgery (p < 0.001). Mean aesthetic scores for the concentric circular technique were superior to free nipple graft for scar (3.39 versus 2.62; p < 0.001) and contour (3.82 versus 3.34; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who meet selection criteria, the concentric circular technique is preferred because of fewer scars, improved aesthetic contour, and potential for retained nipple sensation. These patients must be counseled regarding the higher rate of complications and revisions. It was determined that smokers and those with a nipple-to-inframammary fold distance greater than 7 cm or nipple-to-inframammary fold distance less than 7 cm and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m should undergo the free nipple graft technique because of the increased risk of complications with the concentric circular technique. 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it