SynthesisAesthetic surgery journal2026
Capsular Contracture Rates in Subfascial and Subglandular Breast Augmentation With Smooth vs Textured Implants.
Synthesis in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subfascial placement has been reported to reduce capsular contracture (CC) in primary breast augmentation. Given the shift toward smooth implants, it is unclear whether the perceived advantage reflects the surgical plane or historical implant selection. This study compares CC rates between subfascial and subglandular breast augmentation stratified by implant surface. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library, London, UK), and Google Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA) were searched through April 2025. Studies reporting CC in primary augmentation with specified implant surface and plane were included. Random-effects models generated pooled incidences and odds ratios. Subgroup analyses evaluated studies published in the last decade with a mean follow-up duration of >24 months. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Across all years, studies comparing subfascial vs subglandular placement for smooth implants demonstrated no statistically significant difference in CC rates (7.2% vs 17.1%, P = .13). Studies evaluating textured implants similarly showed no significant difference between planes (0.9% vs 3.7%, P = .08). In studies published since 2015, smooth implants demonstrated comparable CC rates between subglandular and subfascial placement (8.2% vs 10.3%, P = .54). In studies with a mean follow-up of >24 months, no significant differences were observed for smooth implants, whereas textured implants demonstrated lower rates with subfascial placement. Microtextured implants demonstrated the lowest CC rates. When controlling for implant surface, CC rates do not differ significantly between subfascial and subglandular placement. Previously reported reductions in CC with subfascial augmentation appear driven by textured-implant cohorts. In contemporary smooth-implant practice, CC rates are similar across prepectoral planes. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic) For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.