ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2022
A Rationale for Micro-textured Breast Implant Augmentation.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tissue-Preserving Inframammary Fold Breast Augmentation: A 3-Year Clinical Experience.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Observational
- Do Textured Breast Implants Mitigate Malposition? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- A Multicentric and Retrospective Clinical Study: 2 Year Follow-up Results for Breast Surgery With Perle Smooth Opaque Silicone Breast Implants.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
- Soft Tissue Support as an Adjunct to Implant-Based Cosmetic Breast Surgery: A 500+ Case Experience.Eplasty · 2024Article
- Use of High-Resolution Ultrasound in Characterizing the Surface Topography of a Breast Implant.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Textured breast implants have been used in aesthetic breast surgery to decrease rates of malposition and capsular contracture. Recent concerns regarding breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL)'s link to textured devices have prompted many physicians to reevaluate their use. Objectives: The authors aimed to create an algorithm for when to use smooth vs micro-textured breast implants and provide their rationale for when micro-textured implants may be more beneficial. Methods: In total, 133 patients received primary augmentations performed by a single surgeon from January 2018 to December 2020; 84 patients received smooth implants and 49 patients received micro-textured implants. All surgeries were performed in the dual plane using an inframammary incision. Implant-related complications and scar malposition were recorded and compared between groups. Results: No significant difference in the prevalence of implant-related complications was found (3.57% for smooth devices and 2.04% for micro-textured devices [ Conclusions: Micro-textured breast implants continue to be a safe and effective choice for patients. Micro-textured implants show a trend toward decreased scar malposition, although not statistically significant. Patients at high risk for malposition with micro-textured breast implants give similar results to patients at average risk for malposition with smooth implants. Level of Evidence 3:
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.