ReviewJPRAS open2025
A deep dive into safety of breast implants and recreational diving: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This review evaluates the performance and the safety of breast implants under conditions associated with recreational diving, focusing on their structural integrity, morphological changes, and long-term durability. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Included studies were those addressing effect of barometric pressure on breast implants. A comprehensive literature review from 1980 to 2024, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and Google Scholar databases, clinical experience, and case reports, is analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: Breast implants are advised as safe for recreational diving in standard depth limitations (<40 meters). Studies demonstrated no significant volume changes or ruptures under hyperbaric conditions. However, cohesive-gel implants exhibited some morphological alterations, particularly with repetitive dives, which could impact their long-term durability. Saline implants showed greater resistance to deformation compared to cohesive-gel and double-lumen implants. Discussion: The risk associated with recreational diving on breast implants is minimal, although factors such as frequency of diving, type of implant, and diving depth are important. Regular monitoring through imaging techniques and patient education can temper potential risks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of diving on modern implants in real-world conditions. Conclusion: Breast implants are safe for recreational diving under typical conditions, but long-term durability may be affected by repetitive stress. Clinicians should provide personalized recommendations for divers while making sure to follow up regularly.
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.