Mastectomy flap necrosis after nipple‐sparing mastectomy and immediate implant‐based reconstruction: An evaluation of tumescence and sharp dissection technique on surgical outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate implant-based reconstruction has better esthetic outcomes and improved patient satisfaction, in addition to being oncologically safe. A known complication of NSM is skin flap necrosis. The use of tumescence and sharp dissection may decrease this complication compared to the standard NSM technique using electrocautery. This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent a NSM between 2014 and 2017 at a regional cancer center. Tumescence with sharp dissection was compared to electrocautery. The primary outcome was skin flap necrosis. The secondary outcomes were operative time and management of the complication. A total of 62 patients underwent a NSM with 116 breasts being operated on. Full-thickness necrosis occurred more frequently in the standard electrocautery group (12.8%) compared to the tumescence and sharp dissection group (1.3%; P = 0.02). Partial-thickness necrosis also occurred more frequently in the standard group (33.3%) compared to the sharp dissection group (13.0%; P = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in the sharp dissection group with the mean (SD) time being 183.5 (48.9) minutes compared to the standard electrocautery group at 202.9 (33.8) minutes (P = 0.03). NSM using tumescence and sharp dissection have a lower rate of the complications of partial- and full-thickness necrosis. Shorter operative time was also seen with the tumescent technique.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".