ArticleGland surgery2026
Endoscopic-assisted removal of injectable Amazingel with or without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation: safety and aesthetic outcomes from a retrospective study.
Article in Gland surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polyacrylamide hydrogel, commercially referred to as Amazingel, was prohibited for use in China in 2006 owing to its associated high complication rates. Conventional techniques for its removal are frequently insufficient to achieve complete eradication, often leading to persistent complications and suboptimal aesthetic results. This study aims to evaluate the safety and aesthetic outcomes of a novel transaxillary endoscopic-assisted removal of Amazingel (TERA) with or without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation (IPBA). Methods: This retrospective study encompassed 42 patients who underwent TERA with or without IPBA between April 2020 and May 2025. Surgical safety was evaluated through the incidence of postoperative complications within the one-month postoperative period. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed three months after surgery using the Harris scale. Results: The 42 patients were divided into two groups: 25 patients who underwent TERA with IPBA (the IPBA group) and 17 patients who underwent TERA alone (the N-IPBA group). A statistically significant improvement in aesthetic outcomes, as measured by the Harris scale, was demonstrated in the IPBA group compared to the N-IPBA group (P=0.01). Regarding safety, only one patient (2.38%) in the IPBA group developed a local infection, which was successfully managed with a course of oral antibiotics. Minimal residual Amazingel was detected on imaging in two patients (4.76%), with no associated discomfort. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrate that TERA with or without IPBA is a safe and effective method. The TERA technique facilitates a more thorough hydrogel removal and superior aesthetic results compared to conventional methods. Furthermore, the concomitant performance of IPBA significantly enhances postoperative patient satisfaction without elevating the risk of complications. These promising results warrant further validation through large-scale, multicenter prospective trials to generalize the findings.
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.