Preoperative and Postoperative Assessment of Rectus Abdominis Muscle Size and Function following DIEP Flap Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective evaluation of rectus abdominis muscle function after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is limited. Elimination of muscle harvest with this procedure is theoretically associated with preservation of rectus abdominis function and minimization of abdominal wall morbidity. In this study, the authors evaluate the change in rectus abdominis muscle size and function after DIEP flap surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing unilateral DIEP flap surgery were recruited prospectively. Using computed tomography, the change in preoperative to postoperative rectus abdominis muscle size was compared between the operative side rectus abdominis muscle and the contralateral, nonoperative control rectus abdominis. Postoperative muscle integrity and contractility were evaluated using ultrasound by comparing the change in rectus abdominis muscle dimensions between contractile and relaxed states. The BREAST-Q was used to score patients' subjective satisfaction. Clinical and radiographic hernia rates were also calculated. RESULTS: Analysis of 26 paired rectus abdominis muscles revealed no significant change in muscle size from preoperative to postoperative values. Furthermore, dimensional change from contractile to relaxed states postoperatively was similar for paired operative and nonoperative rectus abdominis muscles. BREAST-Q scores indicated a high degree of satisfaction in abdominal well-being, breast satisfaction, and surgical experience domains. There were no clinical or radiographic abdominal wall hernias noted. CONCLUSIONS: The DIEP flap is an effective surgical procedure with minimal abdominal wall morbidity that is associated with no measurable loss in rectus abdominis size and contractile function postoperatively. Patients are highly satisfied with their abdominal function postoperatively using this technique. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".