ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Quality of life in breast reconstruction: a comparison of lightweight and conventional breast implants.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. 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.
- Real-world data of perioperative complications in prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the declining mortality rates of breast carcinoma and the rising incidence of risk-reducing mastectomies, enhancing the quality of life after breast reconstructions has become an increasingly important goal. The advantages of lightweight breast implants (B-Lite®) may significantly contribute to achieving this objective. This study aims to investigate whether lightweight implants are suitable for patients undergoing breast reconstruction and could improve the quality of life in comparison to conventional implants.
methodsIn this study, we retrospectively analyzed 48 patients (38 implants in each group) who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction with either B-Lite® or conventional breast implants between 2019 and 2022 at the University Center for Plastic Surgery in Regensburg. As part of the postoperative follow-up, a clinical examination and a survey using the Breast-Q® questionnaire were conducted to evaluate the postoperative quality of life.
resultsThe implants used were similar in weight and shape. On average, the B-Lite® implants had a higher implant volume and patients in this group had a slightly higher BMI. Patients who received B-Lite® implants showed a significantly better result regarding the sensation of sensitivity in the surgical area and the scar formation also appeared to be more favorable. However, patients with B-Lite® implants perceived their implants as more uncomfortable than those with conventional breast implants. In other terms concerning quality of life, both groups appeared similar.
conclusionIn summary, there are confounding factors that could influence the outcome of some aspects in this study, which could not be avoided due to the retrospective study design and the temporary suspension of B-Lite implants. Nevertheless, as the first of its kind, this study demonstrated that B-Lite implants could also be suitable for usage in breast reconstructions, thus providing an important foundation for further prospective studies to build upon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38874778What 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.