Repeated breast reconstruction after previous complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated breast reconstruction in cancer patients depending on complications after primary reconstruction. Material and methods. There were 117 patients who underwent primary one-stage breast reconstruction with endoprosthesis, autograft and/or their combination. Results. A retrospective analysis included 117 patients who underwent complex treatment in 2017—2021. Surgical treatment (subcutaneous/skin-sparing mastectomy with one-stage reconstruction) was realized at the department of oncology and reconstructive surgery of the breast and skin. Analysis included patients after one-stage reconstruction with silicone endoprosthesis (n=96, 82%), different flaps (n=3, 2.5%), combination of auto- and allogenic materials (n=18, 15.3%). The most common complications were Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant rupture, endoprosthesis protrusion and flap necrosis. The most preferable redo surgery was implant-to-implant replacement (n=58). Of these, there were 40 (68.9%) redo surgeries for Backer grade III/IV capsular contracture, implant protrusion (n=7, 12%) and rupture (n=5, 8.6%). Flap necrosis required flap replacement with implant, flap reduction and implant placement under the flap. Conclusion. Each technique has certain advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of method depends on individual characteristics of each patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".