Hyperbaric oxygen therapy outcomes in post-irradiated patient undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction: A preliminary retrospective comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Radiotherapy is a challenge in autologous breast reconstruction because of its impact on cutaneous and vascular systems. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is a recognized treatment of radiation-related complications. We aim at assessing the impact of peri-operative HBOT on irradiated breast microvascular reconstructive outcomes. Method We reviewed medical charts of patients who received radiotherapy and then underwent secondary free autologous breast reconstruction at our institution. Demographic, HBOT protocol, intervention characteristics and recipient-site complications were collected. Outcomes of irradiated patients were then compared between HBOT and non-HBOT groups. Results Fourteen patients were included (eleven unilateral and two bilateral deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEP) and one free transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap (f-TRAM)). Seven patients received HBOT and seven did not. In the non-HBOT group, there were one Clavien-Dindo grade II, one Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa and two Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb post-operative complications. In the HBOT group, there were three Clavien-Dindo grade I, one Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa and two Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb post-operative complications. Mean operative time was 452.3 minutes (SD ± 62.4) for unilateral cases without HBOT and 457.8 minutes (SD 102.1) with HBOT ( p =0.913). Mean ischemia time per flap without HBOT was 109.4 minutes (SD 51.8), versus 80.1 minutes (SD 37.7) in the HBOT group ( p =0.249). Conclusion This study gives insights on the potential of HBOT treatment in preparing irradiated breast cancer patients for secondary autologous reconstruction. IRB CCER 2024-00007
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".