ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Breast Implant Removal-Only: The Role of Targeted Compression.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Revision Mastopexy in Aesthetic Breast Surgery.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- A Long-Term Single-Center Study: Motivations and Strategies in Implant Management for Breast Augmentation Revision Surgery.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of women seeking explantation of their breast implants has increased in recent years. Anxiety due to potential health problems has been one of the major catalysts. Mastopexy with or without autoaugmentation and fat grafting are the main techniques used in breast implant removal surgery.
objectivesTo analyse the aesthetic and satisfactory outcomes after simple breast implant removal assisted by targeted compression.
methodsTwenty-eight patients were included in the series. Targeted compression of the breast after implant removal was performed during the 1st month. A satisfaction survey using a Likert scale was used before and after the final visit. The patients were followed up for 1 year.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 41 years old, and the mean time between implantation and removal was 10 years. Subjective reasons for removal (46.4% of the patients) were more frequent in women with less time since implantation (5 years) versus 15 years for implant-related problems. A total of 57.14% of the women were satisfied with the aesthetic result, and 42.86% were very satisfied. Only 17.8% of the total would consider an aesthetic refinement.
conclusionsSimple breast implant removal yields good aesthetic outcomes, and patients are satisfied with the results. Good management of compression of the breast and close follow-up to treat any collection in the pocket provides good adhesion and allows for effective management of the process of deflation and setting of the breast mound. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
39043947What 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.