Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780912›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Breast silicone implants' pericapsular impairment: current underdiagnosed status.

Eduardo de Faria Castro Fleury

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eduardo de Faria Castro FleuryDepartment of Radiology, Centro Universitário São Camilo-Curso de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
Centro Universitário São Camilo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many complications related to silicone implants have been reported recently, from clinical symptoms manifestations to association with some specific types of cancer. During the early 2010s, it was believed that implants were biocompatible and inert to the human body and that gel bleeding/leakage events were rare and without repercussions for the human body. However, at the end of 2010s, several studies pointed out that gel bleeding was more frequent than previously believed, and the pathogenic potential of free silicone should not be ignored. The Food and Drug Administration recommends performing magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients 5-6 years after implant placement. The descriptors in the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System lexicon seem outdated for classifying the new generations of implants with cohesive gel, which hinders the diagnosis of device complications. In this review, supported by our research data publications related to silicone implants for 6 years on a prospective study protocol, most of them being original articles, we summarized the main complications observed in clinical practice and discuss the impact of these changes on patients' outcomes focusing on the pericapsular space.

Indexed as

BIA-ALCLBIA-SCCbreast cancerbreast implantgranuloma

Identifiers

PMID37780912
PMCPMC10536283
OpenAlexW4386723436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.