Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296929›Full record

Observational studyAesthetic plastic surgery2022

A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea.

Bum Sik Bang, Seong Hoon Jung, Eun Kyoung Lee, Jung Youp Sung, Keun Yeong Song, Young Bum Yoo, Dong Wook Park, Jeong Eun Sohn, Jae Hong Kim

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Bum Sik BangYang Hospital, Namyangju-si, Gyeonggi, Korea.
Seong Hoon JungDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain medicine, Cheju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea.
Eun Kyoung LeeVievis NAMUH Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Youp SungBBC Plastic Surgery Clinic, Changwon, Korea.
Keun Yeong SongDepartment of Breast Surgery, Gwangju Suwan Hospital, Gwangju, Korea.
Young Bum YooDepartment of Surgery, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Dong Wook ParkVenus Women's Clinic, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Eun SohnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain medicine, Cheju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea.
Jae Hong KimThe W Clinic, 9F Kukdong B/D, 596 Gangnam-daero, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06626, Korea. stenka@hanmail.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7162-9944
Cheju Halla General Hospital · KRHannam University · KRKonkuk University Medical Center · KRKwangju Christian Hospital · KRYang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty.

methodsWe initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation.

resultsA total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS.

conclusionsIn conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsMammaplastySurgeonsDevice RemovalEstheticsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansProsthesis FailureRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBreast implantsEquipment and suppliesRuptureSafety-based medical device withdrawalsUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35296929
OpenAlexW4221041580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.