ArticleJPRAS open2025
Prevalence of Silicone Lymphadenopathy in Women with Breast Implants: A single-center retrospective study.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Silicone Axillary Lymphadenopathy Associated With Rupture of Fourth-Generation Cohesive Silicone Breast Implants Following Breast Augmentation.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Silicone lymphadenopathy (SLA) is a known finding after breast implant surgery. The prevalence of SLA is unknown and therefore its clinical implications are unclear. To make a statement about the clinical importance of SLA, more knowledge on its prevalence is necessary. This study aimed to provide details of SLA prevalence in a single-center. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort collected all breast radiology reports from breast or axillary ultrasound (US) and breast MRI exams between 2010 and 2020. These reports were screened for the presence of implant rupture (IR) and/or SLA. Results: Overall, 1,217 women with silicone breast implants (SBIs) were included over 10 years. This resulted in 1,345 US and 900 MRI reports. In this cohort, 47 women (3.86%) had SLA with intact SBIs, 136 women (11.18) had IR, and 24 (1.97%) had SLA with IR. The sensitivity for IR on US and MRI were 76.2% and 91.7%, respectively. The specificity was 53.8% for IR on US and 66.7% on MRI. These calculations were based on the imaging results of patients whose implants were removed in the MUMC+. Conclusion: This retrospective cohort provides a single-center ten-year representation of diagnostic imaging of patients with breast implants. The prevalence of SLA in this cohort of women with breast implants is 5.83%. IR increases the risk of developing SLA; however, it can also occur in women with intact SBIs. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on the prevalence of SLA in patients with SBIs.
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.