Outcome of Matrix Rotation Versus Single Incision Lateral Sulcus Mammoplasty in Upper Quadrant Breast Carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The term “oncoplastic breast surgery” (OBS) incorporates plastic and oncologic concepts. Through the application of diverse mammoplasty approaches, the remaining breast tissue can be reconstructed, thereby enabling more extensive resections to be achieved with oncologically safe, margin-free outcomes. This study aims to assess the efficacy of the single incision lateral mammoplasty (SILM) technique as an oncoplastic approach for managing breast cancer located in the outer quadrant, in comparison with the matrix rotation flap (MRF) technique. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study comprised 68 patients, who were randomized into two groups scheduled to undergo breast surgery: Group A constitutes the matrix rotation flap MRF group and Group B represents the single incision lateral sulcus mammoplasty (SLIM) group. A follow-up was planned for postoperative complications and esthetic outcomes. Results: The mean age of patients in Group A was 51.4 ± 9.4 years, compared with 52.6 ± 8.1 years in Group B. A total of 14.7% and 11.8% of patients in Group A reported a hematoma or seroma, respectively, which were higher than what was reported in Group B, where a hematoma and seroma were reported in 5.9% of patients. Additionally, 32.4% and 50% of patients in Groups A and B, respectively, reported excellent satisfaction. The evaluation with the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) revealed that esthetic outcomes were significantly better in Group B. Conclusions: Compared to the MRF procedure, the SLIM results in a much lower rate of postoperative hematoma, minor seroma, minimum blood loss, reduced areolar deviation, and improved breast symmetry. Both the MRF and SLIM techniques yield acceptable cosmetic outcomes. However, a longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish the definitive oncological equivalence between techniques.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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; 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".