Comparing the thoracodorsal and internal mammary vessels as recipients for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine whether the thoracodorsal (Td) vessels have comparable clinical outcomes to the internal mammary (IM) vessels as recipients for autologous free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction. METHODS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and World of Science from inception to June 2016 were performed by two independent reviewers. Studies that included adult females undergoing autologous free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction were selected. The two comparison groups were the use of IM or Td as recipient vessels. Our primary outcome was rate of flap survival. We assessed the methodologic quality of included studies using the JADAD and MINOR scales. RESULTS: A total of 1897 patients underwent 2644 free abdominal flap tissue transfer in the 10 articles that were included in our analysis. There was one randomized controlled study (Jadad score 2/5) and 9 nonrandomized controlled studies (MINORS scores 11-19/24). There was no difference between the uses of either vessel in terms of flap loss (1.18; 95% CI 0.71-1.95). Complication rate among the IM vessels ranged from 5 to 12%, compared with 3.4-12% among Td vessels. Hematoma and seroma rates were variable. Fat necrosis was higher with Td vessels in two studies. Performing Td vessels anastomosis was associated with shorter operative time and higher risk of encountering unusable vessel. CONCLUSION: Both recipient vessels are safe, reliable and demonstrate equivocal results in the absence of contraindications. Utilizing either as a first-line vessel is reasonable, depending on surgeons' preference or certain clinical scenarios. QUESTION: Therapeutic, Level of evidence: 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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".