Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39435202›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Advantages and Disadvantages of Breast Augmentation: Surgical Techniques, Outcomes and Future Directions.

Christopher R Meretsky, Erik M Knecht, Anthony T Schiuma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Enhancing Cleavage Aesthetics in Patients Seeking Breast Augmentation: Surgical Technique and Key Considerations.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2026
    Article
  3. 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.

Christopher R MeretskySurgery, St. George's University School of Medicine, Great River, USA.
Erik M KnechtSurgery, Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University, Illinois, USA.
Anthony T SchiumaOrthopedic Surgery, Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast augmentation remains a highly sought-after cosmetic surgery, with various techniques available to enhance breast size using implants or fat transfer. This systematic review, spanning studies from 2003 to 2024 and adhering to PRISMA guidelines, evaluates the outcomes of different surgical approaches concerning scar quality, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and complications. The periareolar technique emerges as a favorable option, offering minimal postoperative pain, high patient satisfaction, and precise surgical control with subtle scarring. Transumbilical breast augmentation (TUBA) is noted for its scar-free approach, resulting in low pain and high satisfaction, though it requires specialized training and cannot use prefilled implants. The review highlights the varying complication rates across techniques: modern silicone implants, while safer than earlier injectable materials, still face risks such as rupture and capsular contracture. Autologous fat grafting is generally safer but can lead to issues like erythema and abscesses. The use of effective acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is linked to higher rates of seroma and infection compared to non-ADM procedures, although sterile human ADM shows a lower risk profile. The study underscores the importance of personalized surgical planning to optimize outcomes, as each technique offers distinct benefits and challenges. The findings suggest that future research should aim to refine these techniques and address their associated complications to further enhance patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes in breast augmentation.

Indexed as

breast augmentationcomplicationspatient satisfactionpostoperative painsurgical techniques

Identifiers

PMID39435202
PMCPMC11492812

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.