ArticleScientific reports2026
A proposal of a new periimplant breast pathology classification into 3 types.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite preventive measures, silicone breast implants can develop severe pathologies that necessitate surgical revision. At present, there is no standardized classification for the capsular tissue excised during such revisions, yet establishing one would be critical for elucidating the underlying causes and pathogenesis of implant failure. A histopathological typing scheme for capsular tissue in breast implant-related pathologies (PBI classification) was developed and its sensitivity compared with the clinical diagnosis. A newly adapted, substantially time-reduced Oil Red O staining protocol is to be applied to assess whether direct detection of silicone is sufficiently feasible. Three types were defined: fibrosis type 1 is characterized by a fibrous reaction with variable fibroblast cellularity. Silicone type 2 is defined by the presence of silicone deposits within and outside the capsular tissue. Malignancy type 3 is characterized by the presence of malignancies. A total of 150 cases from five different clinics (period: 2001–2018) were characterized as follows: fibrosis type 1, n = 104 (69.3%); silicone type 2, n = 42 (28.0%); malignancy type 3, n = 4 (2.7%). The sensitivity of clinical diagnosis for breast implant-related pathologies was 80.8%, 95% CI [71.9%, 87.4%] for fibrosis type 1; 54.8%, 95% CI [38.7%, 70.2%] for silicone type 2; and 0%, 95% CI [0%, 17.7%] for malignancy type 3. This classification makes a significant contribution to elucidating their etiology. The results for the interobserver (κ = 0.87) and intraobserver (κ = 1.0) reliability showed a high agreement, which adds to the robustness and reproducibility of this classification. Comparison of histopathological and clinical diagnoses revealed a marked discrepancy in the correct identification of silicone type 2. The newly adapted time shortened and readily applicable Oil Red O staining enables direct detection of silicone and is proposed, in addition to this classification, as a specific method for silicone detection in routine diagnostics.
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.