ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023
The Best Under Stress: An Analysis of Breast Tissue Expander Response to External Forces.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary on: The Best Under Stress: An Analysis of Breast Tissue Expander Response to External Forces.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
- Response to: Commentary on: The Best Under Stress: An Analysis of Breast Tissue Expander Response to External Forces.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of breast tissue expanders (TEs) in breast reconstruction is accompanied by undesired changes to the chest wall and lateral plane. Breast TEs are designed to create a naturally formed breast pocket by capitalizing on the ductile response of skin tissue; however, in practice, the use of expanders is accompanied by undesired changes to the chest wall and lateral plane. Objectives: The authors of this study compared 3 comparably sized and commercially available breast TEs to assess the mechanical profile and functionality of each design. Methods: Authors compared MENTOR Artoura PLUS Smooth (Irvine, CA), Allergan 133 Smooth (Irvine, CA), and Sientra AlloX2 Smooth (Santa Barbara, CA) filled to 100% of their label volume. The mechanical profile of TEs was assessed via vertical compression. Dimensions were recorded at baseline and percent changes were calculated at each compressive load (5-35 lbf intervals of 5 lbf). Results: Base width and projection were recorded at compressive loads of 10, 20, and 35 lbs. For percent changes of base width, MENTOR had 0.98%, 2.09%, 3.84%; Allergan 4.21%, 9.15%, 15.52%; and Sientra 4.72%, 10.19%, 19.15%. For percent changes of projection, MENTOR had -19.06%, -25.44%, -30.88%, Allergan -35.53%, -42.90%, -50.09%, and Sientra -29.64%, -37.68%, -44.69%. For percent change of height, MENTOR had 1.44%, 2.62%, 4.27%, Allergan 10.26%, 16.49%, 22.97%, and Sientra 6.99%, 11.93%, 16.90%. MENTOR's TE had the most pronounced lower pole with volume expansion. Conclusions: The MENTOR TE demonstrated the least lateral deformation and projection loss across the range of compressive loads, as well as the highest force resistance compared with the other models. 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.