MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146776059 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000007899

Skin-Reducing Mastectomy with Immediate Prepectoral Reconstruction: Surgical, Aesthetic, and Patient-Reported Outcomes with and without Dermal Matrices

2021· article· en· W3146776059 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Safran, Becher Al‐Halabi, Alex Viezel-Mathieu, Jean-François Boileau, Tassos Dionisopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapsular contractureMastopexySurgeryInframammary foldSeromaBreast reconstructionImplantMastectomyHematomaPatient satisfactionCellulitisAreolaPlastic surgeryBreast cancerComplicationCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral breast reconstruction is being increasingly popularized, largely because of technical advances. Patients with ptotic breasts and active cancer require mastectomies through a mastopexy excision pattern to achieve proper pocket control in a prepectoral single-stage operation. This article presents a single-surgeon experience with direct-to-implant, prepectoral reconstruction following skin-reducing mastectomies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified all patients undergoing prepectoral, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction following Wise-pattern mastopexy from June of 2016 to June of 2018. Surgical and aesthetic outcomes, including capsular contracture and revision surgery, were measured. The BREAST-Q was administered preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (121 breasts) were included. A widely based inframammary fold adipodermal flap was used in all cases, with acellular dermal matrix used in 77 breasts (63.3 percent), free nipple grafts in 42 breasts (34.7 percent), and postmastectomy radiation therapy in 31 breasts (26.5 percent). Operative complications included nipple-areola complex necrosis in six (5.1 percent), hematoma in four (3.4 percent), seroma in four (3.4 percent), implant exposure in three (2.6 percent), and infection in one (0.9 percent). Minor complications included cellulitis in five (6.0 percent) and minor wound issues in five (4.3 percent). In aesthetic outcomes, only two nonirradiated breasts experienced a grade 3 to 4 or grade 4 capsular contracture requiring capsulectomy. Rippling was visible in four breasts (3.4 percent). The BREAST-Q showed good satisfaction with the technique, with no significant differences between nipple-areola complex techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort represents the largest single-surgeon, Wise-pattern, direct-to-implant prepectoral database in the literature. This report showed that surgical and aesthetic complications did not differ in terms of acellular dermal matrix use. This technique has shown, through patient-reported outcomes, to yield good patient satisfaction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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