MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135892521 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1723816

The Impact of Prior Abdominal Surgery on Complications of Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3135892521 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgerySeromaBreast reconstructionFat necrosisHematomaMammaplastyAbdomenMeta-analysisRelative riskBreast cancerComplicationConfidence intervalCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Approximately half of all patients presenting for autologous breast reconstruction have abdominal scars from prior surgery, the presence of which is considered by some a relative contraindication for abdominally based reconstruction. This meta-analysis examines the impact of prior abdominal surgery on the complication profile of breast reconstruction with abdominally based free tissue transfer. Methods Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Included studies examined patients with a history of prior abdominal surgery who then underwent abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction. Prior liposuction patients and those with atypical flap designs were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Flap complications included total and partial flap loss, fat necrosis, infection, and reoperation. Donor-site complications included delayed wound healing, infection, seroma, hematoma, and abdominal wall morbidity (hernia, bulge, laxity). Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups were calculated. Forest plots, I 2 statistic heterogeneity assessments, and publication bias funnel plots were produced. Publication bias was corrected with a trim-and-fill protocol. Overall effects were assessed by fixed-effects and random-effects models. Results After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 16 articles were included for final review. These included 14 cohort and 2 case–control studies, with 1,656 (46.3%) patients and 2,236 (48.5%) flaps having undergone prior surgery. Meta-analysis showed patients with prior abdominal surgery were significantly more likely to experience donor-site delayed wound healing with a risk ratio of 1.27 (random 95% CI [1.00; 1.61]; I 2= 4) after adjustment for publication bias. No other complications were statistically different between groups. Conclusion In patients with a history of prior abdominal surgery, abdominally based free tissue transfer is a safe and reliable option. Abdominal scars may slightly increase the risk of delayed donor-site wound healing, which can aid the surgeon in preoperative counseling.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.015
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.283 · 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