Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30958549›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2019

Expert Consensus on the Use of a New Bioengineered, Cell-Friendly, Smooth Surface Breast Implant.

Marcos Sforza, Dennis C Hammond, Giovanni Botti, Per Hedén, Manuel Chacón Quirós, Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz, Brian M Kinney, Niamh Corduff

Erratum issuedAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Marcos SforzaResponsible for the Elective Internship in Plastic Surgery, Dolan Park Hospital, UK.
Dennis C HammondAssociate Program Director of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Spectrum Health/Michigan State University Plastic Surgery, Grand Rapids, MI.
Giovanni Bottiplastic surgeon in private practice in Salo, Italy.
Per Hedénplastic surgeon in private practice in Stockholm, Sweden.
Manuel Chacón Quirósplastic surgeon in private practice in San José, Costa Rica.
Alexandre Mendonça MunhozChief of the Department of Plastic Surgery, Division of Breast Reconstruction, Cancer Institute of São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Brian M KinneyPlastic Surgeon, Keck School of Medicine, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Southern California, Beverly Hills, CA.
Niamh Corduffplastic surgeon in private practice in Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Geelong Hospital · AUHospital Sírio-Libanês · BRMichigan State University · USRoyal College of Surgeons of England · GBUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough general guidelines are available for established silicone gel breast implants, the unique characteristics of the latest Motiva implants warrant specific guidelines.

objectivesThis study aimed to generate consensus recommendations and summarize expert-based advice to better understand current surgical practices and to establish guidelines for surgeons transitioning from other implant devices to the Motiva implants.

methodsA survey was compiled by 12 plastic surgeon experts in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery and 1 biotechnology scientist, and distributed to 36 plastic surgeons to establish a consensus on the use of these devices. Surgical techniques, complication rates, and implant selection were among the topics discussed.

resultsThe experts agreed on 3 core principles regarding the use of Motiva Round and Ergonomix implants. Firstly, the dissected pocket needs to be close fitting and steps must be taken to prevent expansion of the pocket. Secondly, implant selection must be individualized. Finally, surgical planning and technique must be carefully considered. When questioned about problems they had ecountered, 84.6% of the experts agreed that they experienced fewer overall complications and 76.9% confirmed reduced capsular contracture rates with these devices. Overall, 84.6% of the experts favored selecting Motiva Ergonomix implants over Round implants to achieve a more natural look. In addition, 92.3% of the experts agreed that Motiva implants, due to their innovative technology, reduce the risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.

conclusionsThis international consensus of leading practitioners will assist plastic surgeons with patient selection, preoperative planning, and surgical technique. These recommendations are designed to optimize surgical outcomes, resulting in lower overall complication rates, more natural-looking breasts, and highly satisfied patients.

Indexed as

BioengineeringBreast ImplantsBreast ImplantationFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis Design

Identifiers

PMID30958549
PMCPMC6460429
OpenAlexW2936184212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.