Outcomes of Immediate versus Delayed Autologous Reconstruction with Postmastectomy Radiation: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy autologous breast reconstruction can be immediate or delayed. The safety of performing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and the impact of radiation on the newly reconstructed breast is not yet validated. METHODS: A PubMed, Embase, and Google scholar search was conducted from inception to September 17, 2023. The authors included comparative studies that assessed complications or aesthetic outcomes of IBR versus delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). RESULTS: The search identified 2693 articles. Thirteen were eligible for inclusion. A total of 565 patients underwent IBR followed by radiotherapy, whereas 699 had DBR. Mean follow-up time and age for both groups were comparable ( P > 0.1). None of the complications-revision surgery, infection, total flap failure, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, or delayed wound healing-were significantly different across groups ( P > 0.1). IBR was found to have a higher risk of flap fibrosis (OR, 28.18; 95% CI, 5.15 to 154.12; P = 0.0001; I2 = 44%) and skin flap necrosis (OR, 6.12; 95% CI, 2.71 to 13.82; P < 0.0001; I2 = 27%) but a lower risk of partial flap failure (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) when compared with DBR. Results of fat necrosis should be interpreted with caution. Patient-reported and objective aesthetic outcomes were mostly comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: IBR in the setting of PMRT is increasingly being performed and poses a specific set of challenges that surgeons usually consider. The choice between IBR or DBR in the setting of PMRT should be an individualized decision based on patient risk factors and desires.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".