Refractory Donor-Site Seroma Following DIEP Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Donor-site seroma formation is a complication of autologous breast reconstruction reported most commonly with the use of latissimus dorsi flaps. First-line treatment is percutaneous aspiration which leads to resolution in the majority of cases. Those that persist may progress to a chronic, refractory seroma, which can prove challenging in terms of treatment. The aim of this article is to provide an updated literature review of interventions for chronic donor-site seroma and present the case of a 65-year-old female with a recalcitrant abdominal seroma following deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. Literature review revealed a single article that reported 2 cases of persistent donor-site seroma after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. The patient presented here underwent repeat aspiration, drain placement, and multiple surgical procedures to achieve resolution. In total, the post-reconstruction seroma history of the patient extended over approximately 14 months. We conclude with evidence-based suggestions for chronic, donor-site seroma prevention and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".