ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2026
Silicone Axillary Lymphadenopathy Associated With Rupture of Fourth-Generation Cohesive Silicone Breast Implants Following Breast Augmentation.
Article 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSilicone implant rupture is a common complication of breast augmentation, with silicone axillary lymphadenopathy (SAL) a recognized sequela.
objectivesTo evaluate SAL associated with surgically confirmed rupture of fourth-generation cohesive silicone breast implants and correlate imaging with operative findings.
methodsA retrospective review included 260 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for removal of one or more ruptured cohesive silicone implants identified by non-contrast breast/axillary MRI and ultrasound. The implant-side was the unit of analysis, with bilateral ruptures counted separately. Implant characteristics, including manufacturer, volume, rupture type, and implant age at explantation, were correlated with ipsilateral axillary findings. All patients had primary augmentation with Allergan plc (Irvine, CA) or Mentor Worldwide LLC (Irvine, CA) fourth-generation cohesive implants and available implant records. Operative findings confirmed implant type, size, rupture presence, and rupture characteristics.
resultsAmong 260 patients, 299 ruptured implant-sides were identified, with imaging findings corroborated surgically. Intracapsular rupture accounted for 81.6% of ruptured implant-sides with 18.4% extracapsular ruptures. SAL occurred with both intracapsular and extracapsular rupture types but was more commonly seen with extracapsular rupture. Increasing implant age at explantation showed a strong independent association with SAL, while extracapsular rupture demonstrated a modest independent association. No significant differences in SAL were observed by implant manufacturers.
conclusionsSAL was frequently observed in patients undergoing surgical management of ruptured smooth, fourth-generation cohesive silicone implants. Increasing implant age at explantation was independently associated with SAL, while extracapsular rupture showed a modest independent association. These findings strongly influence patient counseling and surgical evaluation of aging fourth-generation silicone implants. Further study of newer fifth-generation highly cohesive implants is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 (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.