Immediate Breast Reconstruction With Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap and Silicone Implant Followed by Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 30% to 50% of women with breast cancer undergo mastectomy, and approximately 50% of them will receive adjuvant radiotherapy (ART). This study evaluates the medium- and long-term impact of ART after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with latissimus dorsi myocutaneous (LDM) flap and silicone implants. METHODS: Clinical, surgical, and oncological data were retrospectively collected and analyzed based on the medical records of 176 patients who had undergone IBR with LDM flap and silicone implants. RESULTS: The data showed that 7.4% of patients had a history of previous radiotherapy, 56.3% received ART, 31.8% developed capsular contracture with a mean follow-up of 58.1 months, and 14.2% of surgeries were categorized as procedures with a prolonged operating time, lasting above 1 SD of the observed mean. Those who experienced prolonged operating time (odds ratio, 4.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-12.93; P = 0.003) and those who received ART (odds ratio, 7.38; 95% confidence interval, 3.18-17.10; P < 0.001) were more likely to develop capsular contracture. Thirty-two patients (18%) underwent capsulectomy with implant replacement, and 7 patients (4%) had the implant removed. The mean time between IBR and reoperation was 29.1 months. Patients who received ART were 2.84 times more likely to experience reconstruction failure or undergo implant-related reoperation ( P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that IBR with LDM flap and silicone implant followed by ART is a safe procedure, resulting in low rates of reconstruction failure. However, ART increased the likelihood of capsular contracture development and implant-related reoperation, having a negative effect on reconstructed breasts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".