ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Impact of Incisional Access Site in Primary Breast Augmentation: Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction with SCAR-Q.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining Deep Plane Face and Neck Lift with Periorbital Rejuvenation and Ancillary Surgical Procedures of the Face: A Critical Evaluation of Over 434 Consecutive Cases.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Correlation Between General Satisfaction with the Breasts and Appearance of the Scars in Patients Undergoing Inverted T-Scar Reduction Mammaplasty: A Prospective PROMs-Based Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- The Surgeon's Digital Eye: Assessing Artificial Intelligence-generated Images in Breast Augmentation and Reduction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScarring at the incision site represents one of the most impactful outcomes in breast augmentation surgery for both the patient and the surgeon. Few studies exist with the aim of assessing patient perception of scarring outcomes in primary breast augmentation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on quality of life of scars by submitting the SCAR-Q in patients who underwent primary augmentation mammoplasty.
methodsThe SCAR-Q was administered at one and at 6 months after surgery to 54 consecutive patients underwent primary breast augmentation with inferior hemi-periareolar or inframammary incision. A total of 50 patients were divided into two groups of 21 patients with inferior hemi-periareolar incision and 29 patients with inframammary fold incision, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with Prism 9.
resultsAll mean values of the three SCAR-Q scales tend to decrease at the second administration meaning that the perception of the scar is better at time 6 from the patient perspective. In the "Psychosocial scale," lower values at both 1 month and 6 months for group 2 compared to group 1 were shown. Unpaired T tests with Welch's correction showed significance for delta values variations between the two groups with P values <0.0001.
conclusionData show that patients undergoing primary breast augmentation have a scar that has no significant impact. Patients with inframammary fold scar have less psychosocial impact than those with inferior hemi-periareolar scar. There were no statistically significant differences in scar-related symptoms and scar appearance between scar along the inframammary groove and inferior hemi-periareolar scar. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Case series study. 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
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.