Long-term patient-reported back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: case–control cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sacrifice of the latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle might entail donor site morbidity when used in delayed breast reconstruction. Previous studies are small, have short follow-up, and demonstrate diverging results. The aims of this study were to evaluate long-term patient-reported effects on shoulder and back function following LD flap harvest, and to investigate predictors for a worse outcome. METHOD: This is a retrospective observational case-control cohort study. Cases were all patients who had undergone an LD flap reconstruction during the years 2007-2017. Controls were patients reconstructed with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap during the same time period. Participants completed two validated questionnaires; the BREAST-Q reconstruction LD domains and the Western Ontario Shoulder Osteoarthritis Index (WOOS). RESULTS: A total of 135 cases (75 per cent) and 118 controls (60 per cent) responded to the questionnaires. The mean follow-up time was 7 years. Patients reconstructed with a LD flap were significantly less satisfied with their back and shoulder function when compared to the DIEP controls, as measured with BREAST-Q and WOOS. Predictors for a poor patient-reported back and shoulder function included axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy, especially when combined, as well as higher age at reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Patients who have undergone LD flap for delayed breast reconstruction had a lower satisfaction with back and shoulder function, when compared to patients who had undergone a DIEP reconstruction. Delayed LD reconstruction should be used with care, especially in patients who have undergone axillary surgery and axillary radiotherapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".