Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38854622›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2024

Persistent lactation in bilateral breast implant augmentation: A case report and review of the literature.

Mary Goble, Nicholas Cereceda-Monteoliva, Naveen Cavale

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Mary GobleKing's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Nicholas Cereceda-MonteolivaGuy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Naveen CavaleKing's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Persistent lactation, or galactorrhoea, is a common problem which is infrequently seen in the setting of aesthetic surgery. Increasing frequency of aesthetic breast surgery such as breast augmentation suggests a need for improved understanding of the effect of galactorrhoea on surgical outcomes. Case Report: A 34-year-old patient underwent day-case bilateral breast reduction/mastopexy combined with sub-muscular implant augmentation, abdominoplasty and bilateral liposuction to the flanks. She reported to have stopped breastfeeding more than 6 months prior. Intraoperatively, the breast tissue was noted to be lactating. The procedure was completed as planned and a routine postoperative plan was followed including oral antibiotics, analgesia and compression garments. The patient was discharged, however reattended on postoperative day 10 with breast pain and fevers. She was treated for right breast surgical site infection and required washout and implant removal. She was referred to Endocrinology for treatment of galactorrhoea with Bromocriptine and Cabergoline. She subsequently underwent revision implant augmentation with good outcomes. Discussion: This case highlights the increased likelihood of post-operative infection in galactorrhoea associated with breast implant augmentation. It is important to exclude lactation preoperatively and avoid a prosthesis in this situation, to minimise this risk and optimise surgical outcomes. Conclusion: Aesthetic breast surgeons must be aware of the incidence of galactorrhoea, and its possible effects on risks of postoperative complications and poor aesthetic outcomes. The authors suggest deferring implant augmentation until complete resolution of lactation where possible.

Indexed as

Aesthetic breast surgeryBreast augmentationBreast reconstructionCase reportLiterature reviewPersistent lactation

Identifiers

PMID38854622
PMCPMC11156702

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.