ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2022
Gel Cohesivity and Breast Augmentation: Applications to Clinical Practice.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Implants: Biomaterials, Surfaces, Biocompatibility-A Biomedical Engineering Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Study and Reuse of Silicone Implants After Radiotherapy.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of stopping power ratio of artificial breast implants for carbon-ion radiotherapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Advancements in Aesthetic Breast Augmentation: Evaluating the Safety, Efficacy, and Naturalistic Outcomes of Ergonomix2 Implants.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- The Impact of Breast Implant Cohesivity on Rippling and Revision Procedures in 2-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Matching breast implant gel cohesivity to the patient's needs based on anatomical and soft-tissue considerations and patient preferences is essential to optimizing aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Generally, gel cohesivity contributes to the feel and shape of the breast, which reflects volume distribution within the breast. Studies on the physical properties of silicone gel breast implants have established the relative cohesivity of implants from several manufacturers. Comprehensive patient education, tissue-based preoperative planning, and a thorough understanding of how implant properties may affect outcomes are recommended before breast augmentation. This review summarizes the literature on breast implant physical properties with a focus on gel cohesivity and translates gel cohesivity to practical considerations in choosing the right implant for the right patient in primary augmentation. Based on clinical experience, the authors generally recommend lower cohesivity implants for patients who desire a tapered upper pole or a natural appearance/"anatomic shape" as well as for those with a high BMI or a large amount of native breast tissue. Medium-cohesivity implants are most widely used and are appropriate for those with ptosis/augmentation mastopexy, patients with tight skin envelope, and for those seeking upper pole fullness. A high-cohesivity implant is recommended for patients desiring a round shape, patients with constricted lower poles, and patients with a postpartum loose envelope, a thin, soft tissue envelope, or fibrous breast tissue. Level of Evidence 5:
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.