Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing global incidence of breast cancer underscores the significance of breast reconstruction in enhancing patients' quality of life. Breast reconstruction primarily falls into two categories: implant-based techniques and autologous tissue transfers. In this study, we present a comprehensive review of various aspects of implant-based reconstruction, including different types of implants, surgical techniques, and their respective advantages and disadvantages. For autologous breast reconstruction, we classified flaps and optimal harvest sites and provided detailed insights into the characteristics, benefits, and potential complications associated with each flap type. In addition, this review explores the emerging role of fat grafting, which has received increasing attention in recent years. Despite advancements, there remains substantial scope for further improvements in breast reconstruction, emphasizing not only aesthetic outcomes, but also a reduction in complications and postoperative recovery. By offering a comprehensive overview of the historical evolution, current landscape, and future prospects of breast reconstruction, this review aims to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of breast cancer management strategies.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".