ArticleJPRAS open2024
Acute and chronic mammary periprosthetic histological changes of the muscle.
Article in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Augmentation mammoplasty with subpectoral prosthesis implantation is a frequent performed procedure in plastic surgery for reconstructive and aesthetic purposes. Although prosthesis implantation in a pocket under the major pectoralis muscle has been related to volumetric and functional alterations, there is not much information about the associated short- and long-term histological changes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to describe the acute and chronic histological muscle alterations associated with subpectoral prosthesis implantation. Materials and Method: We collected samples from patients with breast tissue expander (<6 months after implantation) and prosthesis (>1 year after implantation) and from patients without implantation as a control group. The samples were processed for assessing their histological, histochemical and immunohistochemical properties. Results: In the control group, no relevant histological findings were identified. Additionally, in the patients with expander, we observed mild augmentation of the internalised nuclei, normal morphology, significant muscle atrophy and fibrosis, whereas in the patients with prosthesis considerable augmentation of internalised nuclei, significant muscle atrophy, fibrosis and alteration of normal muscle morphology were observed. Conclusion: Prosthesis implantation induces histological changes in the periprosthetic striated muscle. Chronic fibrosis and inflammation play key roles in this process, which should be characterised in more detail from the histological and molecular biological perspective.
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.