Staged Mastopexy before Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Improving Safety and Appearance in Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients with large or ptotic breasts remains challenging because of the risk of ischemic complications and the difficulty in managing the redundant skin envelope. Staged mastopexy or breast reduction before the mastectomy/reconstruction has been shown to decrease the risk of complications and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer who underwent staged breast reduction/mastopexy before NSM and reconstruction in the authors' institution. In patients with in situ disease or invasive cancer, the first stage consisted of lumpectomy and oncoplastic reduction/mastopexy. Breast reconstruction at the second stage was performed with free abdominal flaps or breast implants and acellular dermal matrix. Data regarding the ischemic complications were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 47 patients (84 breasts) underwent this staged approach. All patients had a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. The time interval between the two stages was 11.5 months (range, 1.3 to 23.6 months). Twelve breasts (14.3%) were reconstructed with free abdominal flaps, six (7.1%) with tissue expanders, and 66 (78.6%) with permanent subpectoral implants and acellular dermal matrix. There was one case of postoperative superficial nipple-areola complex epidermolysis (1.2%), and two cases of partial mastectomy skin flap necrosis (2.4%). The mean follow-up time after completion of reconstruction was 8.3 months. CONCLUSION: Mastopexy or breast reduction before NSM and reconstruction is a safe procedure with a low risk of ischemic complications. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".