Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41832359›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026

Reducing Plastic Surgery's Silicone Footprint: Modeling Shipping Costs for Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders.

Tara D Thomason, Jenny A Foster, Chanel R Varney, Alexandria M Mullikin, J Andres Hernandez, Pranav N Haravu, Brett T Phillips

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Tara D ThomasonDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Jenny A FosterDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Chanel R VarneyDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Alexandria M MullikinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Durham, NC, USA.
J Andres HernandezDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Durham, NC, USA.
Pranav N HaravuDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Durham, NC, USA.
Brett T PhillipsDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic, Maxillofacial, and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center (DUMC), Durham, NC, USA. brett.phillips@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the traditional ordering model, plastic surgeons often request 3-4 different sizes of implants, tissue expanders (TEs), and sizers per procedure and order duplicates as backup. This can result in large orders, ranging from 15 to 32 items, with most of the materials remaining unused and ultimately being shipped back to the manufacturer. This study aims to quantify the costs incurred by shipping materials used in breast augmentations and reconstructions. MATERIALS AND

methodsA model was constructed to tabulate annual shipping costs, built upon key inputs for annual ordering volumes and shipping rates that were obtained through secondary sources (e.g., courier websites, American Society of Plastic Surgery [ASPS] statistics data), as well as implant/TE sizes and weights. Extreme and conservative scenarios of ordering behavior were simulated in the model to deduce an expected range and most realistic median figure of annual shipping costs.

resultsIn the base case scenario where three sizes were ordered for all cases using overnight shipping, the total shipping costs for 2023 were $125.3 million. Compared with this, choosing ground shipping for three sizes cost $34.5 million (72.5% less), while ordering four sizes with overnight shipping cost $173.4 million (38.4% more).

conclusionsImplant/TE shipping costs are significant and can total tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the shipping type and total sizes ordered. These costs are handed down to multiple stakeholders in the healthcare system, including physician practices, implant companies, and patients. The results of this study may encourage the use of more cost-efficient methods to decrease overall waste.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsMammaplastyModels, EconomicSiliconesSurgery, PlasticTissue Expansion DevicesTransportationCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansSiliconesBreast augmentationBreast implantsBreast reconstructionBusiness of plastic surgeryCarbon emissionsPlastic surgeryShipping costsTissue expanders

Identifiers

PMID41832359

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.