MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104303880 · doi:10.1177/2292550320969646

Outcomes of Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction in Patients Receiving Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy

2020· article· en· W3104303880 on OpenAlexaff
S. Fan, Hanny Chen, Aaron Grant, Tanya DeLyzer

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMastectomyMedicineRadiation therapyBreast reconstructionGeneral surgeryBreast cancerSurgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction is traditionally avoided in patients who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). However, a subset of patients who undergo alloplastic reconstruction may unpredictably require adjuvant radiation. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and complications in patients at our institution who had undergone immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction and received PMRT to either the permanent implant or temporary tissue expander. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed looking at patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction over a 10-year period (2009-2019) at our regional breast centre. All patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction and had PMRT were included in the study. Major (wound dehiscence with device exposure, or reconstructive failure) and minor (infection, capsular contracture, revision surgery) complication rates between those patients receiving radiation to a tissue expander versus implant were compared using Fisher exact test ( P < .05). Results: Six-hundred ninety-two patients were identified, and 43 patients met inclusion criteria. Of this group, 29 received PMRT to implants and 14 received PMRT to tissue expanders. Complication rates were similar between groups for superficial wound infection (3.4% vs 7.1%), periprosthetic infection (3.4% vs 7.1%), capsular contracture (41.4% vs 21.4%), revision surgery for aesthetics (41.4% vs 21.4%), wound dehiscence and device exposure (3.4% vs 21.3%), and reconstructive failure (10.3% vs 6.7%). Total complication rates were similar between groups (51.7% vs 42.9%). Discussion: Overall 6.4% of patients who underwent immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction required PMRT over a 10-year period. Complication rates for infection, capsular contracture, revision surgery, wound dehiscence and device exposure, and reconstructive failure were similar between both groups. Total complication rates were similar between groups. This information will help to inform decision-making regarding immediate alloplastic reconstruction and expected complications when PMRT is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207