Literature DB >> 33692412

Validating machine learning approaches for prediction of donor related complication in microsurgical breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study.

Yujin Myung1, Sungmi Jeon1, Chanyeong Heo1, Eun-Kyu Kim2, Eunyoung Kang2, Hee-Chul Shin2, Eun-Joo Yang3, Jae Hoon Jeong4.   

Abstract

Autologous reconstruction using abdominal flaps remains the most popular method for breast reconstruction worldwide. We aimed to evaluate a prediction model using machine-learning methods and to determine which factors increase abdominal flap donor site complications with logistic regression. We evaluated the predictive ability of different machine learning packages, reviewing a cohort of breast reconstruction patients who underwent abdominal flaps. We analyzed 13 treatment variables for effects on the abdominal donor site complication rates. To overcome data imbalances, random over sampling example (ROSE) method was used. Data were divided into training and testing sets. Prediction accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive power (AUC) were measured by applying neuralnet, nnet, and RSNNS machine learning packages. A total of 568 patients were analyzed. The supervised learning package that performed the most effective prediction was neuralnet. Factors that significantly affected donor-related complication was size of the fascial defect, history of diabetes, muscle sparing type, and presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy. The risk cutoff value for fascial defect was 37.5 cm2. High-risk group complication rates analyzed by statistical method were significant compared to the low-risk group (26% vs 1.7%). These results may help surgeons to achieve better surgical outcomes and reduce postoperative burden.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33692412      PMCID: PMC7946880          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85155-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  24 in total

1.  Estimation of the Youden Index and its associated cutoff point.

Authors:  Ronen Fluss; David Faraggi; Benjamin Reiser
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.207

2.  Abdominal-wall recovery following TRAM flap: a functional outcome study.

Authors:  G M Kind; A W Rademaker; T A Mustoe
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Edward I Chang; Eric I Chang; Miguel A Soto-Miranda; Hong Zhang; Naveed Nosrati; Geoffrey L Robb; David W Chang
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  DIEP flap donor site versus elective abdominoplasty short-term complication rates: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marzia Salgarello; Damiano Tambasco; Eugenio Farallo
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2011-08-20       Impact factor: 2.326

Review 5.  A classification system for partial and complete DIEP flap necrosis based on a review of 17,096 DIEP flaps in 693 articles including analysis of 152 total flap failures.

Authors:  Kwok Hao Lie; Anthony S Barker; Mark W Ashton
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Development and Evaluation of a Machine Learning Prediction Model for Flap Failure in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anne C O'Neill; Donyang Yang; Melissa Roy; Stephanie Sebastiampillai; Stefan O P Hofer; Wei Xu
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Comparison of outcomes and donor-site morbidity in unilateral free TRAM versus DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

Authors:  M V Schaverien; A G B Perks; S J McCulley
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2007-08-27       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Comparison of abdominal wall morbidity between medial and lateral row-based deep inferior epigastric perforator flap.

Authors:  Hirokazu Uda; Yoko Katsuragi Tomioka; Syunji Sarukawa; Ataru Sunaga; Yasusih Sugawara
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 2.740

9.  Machine Learning Versus Logistic Regression Methods for 2-Year Mortality Prognostication in a Small, Heterogeneous Glioma Database.

Authors:  Sandip S Panesar; Rhett N D'Souza; Fang-Cheng Yeh; Juan C Fernandez-Miranda
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2019-01-24

10.  A machine learning framework for automated diagnosis and computer-assisted planning in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Paul G M Knoops; Athanasios Papaioannou; Alessandro Borghi; Richard W F Breakey; Alexander T Wilson; Owase Jeelani; Stefanos Zafeiriou; Derek Steinbacher; Bonnie L Padwa; David J Dunaway; Silvia Schievano
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  2 in total

1.  An Ounce of Prediction is Worth a Pound of Cure: Risk Calculators in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicholas C Oleck; Sonali Biswas; Ronnie L Shammas; Hani I Naga; Brett T Phillips
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-05-13

Review 2.  Imaging for thinned perforator flap harvest: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Yi Min Khoong; Xin Huang; Shuchen Gu; Tao Zan
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2021-12-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.