Laparoscopic Harvesting of Omental Flaps for Breast Reconstruction—A Review of the Literature and Outcome Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the use of omental flaps for breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer is lacking, and no published reviews report an outcome-based assessment of such flap. This review explores available data and evidence for change in complication rates following the shift toward laparoscopic harvesting. METHODS: We searched the databases Excerpta Medica database, MEDLINE, and PubMed from inception until December 2015 using search terms "omental flaps" and "breast reconstruction." Data extracted were patient characteristics, technique used, and outcome measures reported and were then analyzed based on the technique of harvesting. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles reporting 651 patients who underwent mastectomies and breast-conserving surgeries were included in this review. Most flaps, 537 (82.5%), were harvested by laparoscopy, and 626 (96.2%) of the flaps were pedicle flaps. The mean age was 47.7 years (standard deviation: 4.29), and mean follow-up was 38.1 months. There were 88 reported complications among 562 patients in 16 reports. The rate of any complication was calculated to be 15.0%, with a higher rate (29.1%) occurring with the open technique in comparison to laparoscopy (12.6%). The commonest complications were postoperative infection and breast firmness each reported in 2.22%. Most authors reported advantages of malleability and excellent aesthetic outcomes and disadvantages in terms of inability to estimate the volume of the flap and variability in size. CONCLUSION: Omentum use is safe and has advantages in breast reconstruction where other options are limited including a natural feeling and minimal donor site morbidity if harvested laparoscopically.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it