SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Outcomes of Air Versus Saline-filled Breast Expanders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- [Advances in application of tissue expansion technology in breast reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
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
backgroundAmong the possible implant-based reconstructive strategies, the two-stage tissue expander-to-implant procedure is one of the most common options in patients not ideal candidate to direct-to-implant reconstruction. Recently, other filling options such as air or carbon dioxide (CO2) have been reported as alternative fill media than saline for tissue expansion. The aim of this systematic review was to qualitatively and quantitatively synthetize the available evidence on the topic.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, and they were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were accessed. Only studies with a control group were included. Risk ratios for complications were assessed between breast tissue expanders filled with saline versus air. MINORS criteria were used for bias assessment.
resultsNine studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included. They encompassed a total of 1954 patients and 3243 breasts. Pooled risk ratios in air-filled compared to saline-filled breast expanders were calculated: total complications 0.92 [95% CI: 0.67; 1.27, p=0.53], mastectomy flap necrosis 0.86 [95% CI: 0.65; 1.12, p=0.26], hematoma 1.07 [95% CI: 0.63; 1.84, p=0.80], seroma 1.26 [95% CI: 0.91; 1.76, p=0.16], infection 0.80 [95% CI: 0.61; 1.04, p=0.09], extrusion 1.38 [95% CI: 0.82; 2.32, p=0.23], readmission 0.96 [95% CI: 0.58; 1.60, p=0.88]. The mean difference in days needed to achieve final expansion between air-filled and saline-filled breast expanders was -27.59 [95% CI: -46.42; -8.78, p=0.004].
conclusionAir-filled expanders represent an alternative reconstructive option in the field of two-stage breast reconstruction. Despite limited by the only initial available evidence, they appeared to be safe and associated with a similar risk of complications compared to saline-filled expanders. However, they may enable faster postoperative expansion and fewer outpatient expansion visits compared to saline-filled expanders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
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.