Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40369150›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025

Rotation of Anatomical Implants: A Single Surgeon's Experience of over 1500 Patients.

Paolo Montemurro, Igor Pellegatta, Mubashir Cheema

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Paolo MontemurroAkademikliniken, Storängsvägen 10, 11452, Stockholm, Sweden. paolo.montemurro@ak.se.
Igor PellegattaAkademikliniken, Storängsvägen 10, 11452, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mubashir CheemaAkademikliniken, Storängsvägen 10, 11452, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast augmentation may be performed using round or anatomical shaped implants, and since their introduction in 1993, the indications and outcomes of anatomical implants have been under scrutiny. In fact, due to their asymmetric shape, these devices have a unique risk of rotation. We have previously described our indications and rationale for using anatomical implants as well as a discussion of surface textures and BIA-ALCL. In this review, we primarily address our experience of dealing with clinically evident rotation. All consecutive female patients operated for primary breast augmentation by the first author, who had anatomical implants and had at least 6 months follow-up, were included in this study. Of 1527 female patients operated, 1126 patients with 2252 breast implants met the inclusion criteria. The mean implant volume was 310.9 cc, and the mean follow-up was 18.8 months. 1.8% of implants (n = 41) were found to be clinically rotated at a mean of 14.9 months after surgery. A statistically significant higher incidence rate was found on the left side. Rotation of anatomical implants is often stated as a reason to avoid their use. Our data suggest that despite a short learning curve, it is not an insurmountable problem and with attention to the etiology, its incidence can be consistently minimized.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

Breast ImplantationBreast ImplantsAdultCohort StudiesEstheticsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRotationTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultBreast augmentationImplantRotation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.