MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173211536 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008102

Reduction Mammaplasty for Macromastia in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

2021· review· en· W3173211536 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Hudson, Alexander Morzycki, Regan Guilfoyle

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMammaplastyBreastfeedingBreast reductionPlastic surgeryBreast feedingSurgeryPediatricsBreast surgeryComplicationRetrospective cohort studyBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty for macromastia is one of the most common operations performed by plastic surgeons. There remains hesitancy in operating on adolescents, as there is ongoing debate about breast regrowth and potential impact on breastfeeding. The goal of this study was to analyze these concerns by reviewing the current literature. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted using the following terms: "breast reduction" or "mammaplasty" or "breast reconstruction" and "adolescent" or "youth" or "pediatric" or "child" or "teen." Primary outcomes were success of breastfeeding after the procedure and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (87 percent retrospective), consisting of 2926 patients with preoperative cup sizes of C to KK (mean, DDD), met inclusion criteria. Mean age at the time of surgery ranged from 16 to 21 years, with the youngest patient being 12 years old. The overall complication rate was 27.3 percent (95 percent CI, 14.4 to 42.5 percent). Minor complications (22.8 percent; 95 percent CI, 10.2 to 38.5 percent) were more common than major (4.2 percent; 95 percent CI, 1.6 to 7.9 percent). Eighteen percent of patients (95 percent CI, 2.2 to 43.8 percent) reported regrowth of their breast tissue postoperatively, with 2.7 percent (95 percent CI, 0.9 to 5.5 percent) undergoing a second revision mammaplasty. Fifty-three percent of patients (95 percent CI, 36.0 to 69.3 percent) did not attempt breastfeeding. Of those who attempted, 55.1 percent (95 percent CI, 34.4 to 74.9 percent) were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data are lacking. Patient counseling should focus on encouraging a trial of breastfeeding, despite surgical history. One-fifth of adolescent patients may notice breast regrowth postoperatively; however, the amount of regrowth is likely small and unlikely to reexacerbate symptoms, as the rate of revision surgery is small.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.016
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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