Trial reportActa cirurgica brasileira2020
Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants.
Trial report in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capsular Contracture Rates in Subfascial and Subglandular Breast Augmentation With Smooth vs Textured Implants.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants.
methodsFifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam - Lifesil® - and microtexturized silicone - Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036).
conclusionIn short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.
Indexed as
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.