A Limited Submuscular Direct-to-Implant Technique Utilizing AlloMax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates a novel limited submuscular direct-to-implant technique utilizing AlloMax where only the upper few centimeters of the implant is covered by the pectoralis, whereas the majority of the implant including the middle and lower poles are covered by acellular dermal matrix. METHODS: The pectoralis muscle is released off its inferior and inferior-medial origins and allowed to retract superiorly. Two sheets of AlloMax (6 × 16 cm) are sutured together and secured to the inframammary fold, serratus fascia, and the superiorly retracted pectoralis. Thirty-seven breasts in 19 consecutive patients with follow-up at 6 months were reviewed. RESULTS: Nineteen consecutive patients with 37 reconstructed breasts were studied. Average age was 50 years, average BMI was 24.3. Ptosis ranged from grade 0-III, and average cup size was B (range, A-DDD). Early minor complications included 1 seroma, 3 minor postoperative hematomas managed conservatively, and 3 minor wound healing problems. Three breasts experienced mastectomy skin flap necrosis and were managed with local excision. There were no cases of postoperative infection, red breast, grade III/IV capsular contractures, or implant loss. A single patient complained of animation postoperatively. One patient desired fat grafting for rippling. CONCLUSIONS: The limited submuscular direct-to-implant technique utilizing AlloMax appears to be safe with a low complication rate at 6 months. This technique minimizes the action of the pectoralis on the implant, reducing animation deformities but still providing muscle coverage of the upper limit of the implant. Visible rippling is reduced, and a vascularized bed remains for fat grafting of the upper pole if required.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".