ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
A Reproducible Method for Donor Site Computed Tomography Measurements in Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present an approach for evaluating abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans that generates reproducible measures relevant to donor site morbidity after abdominally based breast reconstruction. Seventeen preoperative CT metrics were measured in 20 patients with software: interanterior superior iliac spine distance; abdominal wall protrusion; interrectus distance; rectus abdominis width, thickness, and width-to-thickness ratio; abdominal wall thickness; subcutaneous fat volume; visceral fat volume; right/left psoas volumes and densities; and right/left rectus abdominis volumes and densities. Two operators performed measures to determine interrater reliability (n = 10). Interclass coefficients (ICCs) were calculated, and Bland-Altman plots were fashioned. Intrarater reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.9, 0.958-1) for 15 measures, and good (0.75 < ICC < 0.9, 0.815-0.853) for 2 measures. Interrater reliability was excellent (ICC > 0.9, 0.912-0.995) for 12 measures and good (0.75 < ICC < 0.9, 0.78-0.896) for 5 measures. Bland-Altman plots confirmed intra/interrater agreement. Our study meets its objective of establishing a protocol for obtaining abdominal CT measurements with high reproducibility and intrarater and interrater reliability. Although this study is not meant to weigh the particular influences of various CT measurements on clinical outcomes, we are now actively studying this with the intention of reporting our findings in the near future. Larger patient cohorts must be leveraged to determine correlations between abdominal CT scan findings and donor site outcomes using machine learning algorithms that generate models for predicting abdominal donor site complications.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.