Effect of Breast Reconstruction on Kinematics and Performance during Upper Limb–Focused Functional Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction after curative breast cancer surgery is becoming increasingly common. There is evidence to suggest that these surgeries have negative effects on shoulder function, but to date there have been no investigations of shoulder biomechanics during functional tasks in this group. The purpose of this study was to define and compare upper limb motion of patients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy only or mastectomy with reconstruction with a control group without cancer during a range of work-related functional tasks. METHODS: Ninety-five women participated: 25 controls, 25 patients with breast cancer who received a mastectomy only, and 45 patients with breast cancer who received a mastectomy with reconstruction (implant, latissimus dorsi flap, or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap). Motion of the torso, humeri, and scapulae were tracked during arm-focused functional tasks, involving reaching, dexterity, and lifting overhead, and joint angles were calculated. Mean, maximum, and minimum angles were calculated and compared among groups using one-way analyses of variance ( p < 0.05). RESULTS: The reconstruction group had significantly different kinematics than the other two groups. Throughout task performance, patients who had reconstruction had increased scapular posterior tilt and increased humeral external rotation. These findings are consistent with reconstruction surgical procedures and may highlight muscle pattern alterations that interfere with co-contraction, stability, and functional task performance. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that breast reconstruction surgery influences functional task performance. Scapular and humeral kinematics may indicate movement pattern differences that are important to address in rehabilitation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".