MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280549038 · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000004297

Improving SIEA Perfusion through the Delay Phenomenon

2022· article· en· W4280549038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. Allen, Rachel A. Anolik, Yasmina Zoghbi, Jonas A. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineDIEP flapBreast reconstructionSurgeryAbdominal wallAbdomenRectus abdominis muscleFasciaMastectomyPerfusionFat necrosisBreast cancerRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advances in microsurgery and increasing autologous options for breast reconstruction, the abdomen remains the ideal donor site owing to its similar quality and pliability relative to normal breast tissue. Use of the lower abdomen has evolved in an effort to reduce donor site morbidity—from the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap to the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap. The SIEA flap avoids violation of the abdominal wall and decreases operative time; however, its use is limited in most patients secondary to the small caliber of the pedicle1 and variable anatomy.2 Additionally, the SIEA flap has been associated with increased rates of flap failure and fat necrosis.2 The delay phenomenon is a well-studied technique to improve perfusion by creating relative ischemia to surrounding tissues.3 There is a paucity of literature regarding vascular delay of SIEA flaps, though this technique is feasible in the appropriate patient.4,5 We present a successful, planned delay procedure of the SIEA flap to improve perfusion of donor tissue without ligating the deep inferior epigastric artery and violating the abdominal wall fascia. The patient in this case is a 52-year-old, nonsmoking woman who presented with infiltrating ductal carcinoma (T1N0M0, ER+/PR+/HER2neu-), for which a unilateral mastectomy was recommended. She was seen to discuss reconstructive options and opted to use autologous abdominal tissue; however, given her active lifestyle, she wanted to avoid the risk of bulging, hernias, laxity, or other functional deficits that can be encountered with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) or transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. The delay procedure was performed at the time of mastectomy and tissue expander placement. The DIEP system was preserved on the opposite side as a lifeboat. The SIEA was identified using Doppler ultrasound, and its course marked. The superior and midline incisions of the flap were made and carried down to the anterior rectus fascia; dissection was then carried in a suprafascial plane to identify the DIEP perforators which were ligated (Fig. 1), and the flap was then re-inset.Fig. 1.: DIEP perforators ligated in the suprafascial plane at the time of mastectomy.Six months later, she underwent right breast reconstruction with the delayed left SIEA flap, including two zones, weighing 550 g. SPY angiography (NOVADAQ Technologies, Inc, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) showed robust perfusion of both zones. She was seen for follow-up at 2 months, with an excellent result and no evidence of fat necrosis, healing issues, or abdominal wall complaints (Fig. 2).Fig. 2.: Postoperative result at 2 months follow-up.In select patients, the planned delay at the time of mastectomy is a feasible technique that can facilitate harvest and improve perfusion of the flap by augmenting the flow through and increasing the caliber of the SIEA. This in turn decreases the risk of fat necrosis and flap failure. This technique can broaden the indications for the SIEA flap and allow an increased number of patients to undergo a procedure that achieves aesthetically pleasing results, with no abdominal wall morbidity. This can ultimately lead to decreased length of stay and earlier return to activities. Further studies are warranted to better define the appropriate patient population and confirm the reliability of this technique. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. This study was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207