ArticleJPRAS open2026
Rotation of anatomical breast tissue expanders: a comparison of microtextured surfaces from different manufacturers.
Article in JPRAS open, 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: Anatomical tissue expanders are widely used in two-stage breast reconstruction following mastectomy. In recent years, microtextured implant surfaces have largely replaced macrotextured devices in order to reduce the risk of capsular contracture while maintaining tissue integration. However, rotation of anatomical expanders remains a clinically relevant complication that may compromise reconstructive outcomes. Comparative data regarding the rotational stability of different microtextured surfaces are limited. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent mastectomy followed by two-stage breast reconstruction using anatomical tissue expanders between January 2017 and December 2024 at two hospitals. Microtextured expanders from Mentor (Siltex surface) and Polytech (POLYtxt surface) were compared. The primary endpoint was expander rotation ≥45°, assessed intraoperatively at the time of expander exchange. Secondary endpoints included reconstruction outcomes, complications, and potential risk factors such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, smoking status, and body mass index (BMI). Results: A total of 164 patients with 181 reconstructed breasts were included (74 Siltex, 107 POLYtxt). Rotation ≥45° occurred significantly more frequently in the Siltex group (33.8%) than in the POLYtxt group (11.2%) (χ²(1)=13.7, p=0.0002). The relative risk of rotation with Siltex expanders was 3.01 (95% CI 1.62-5.61). Patient demographics and expander volumes were comparable between groups. Despite a higher rate of adjuvant radiotherapy in the POLYtxt group, rotation remained less frequent than in the Siltex group. Smoking and chemotherapy were associated with higher rotation rates in the Siltex group, whereas no comparable increase was observed in the POLYtxt group. Other complication rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: Siltex microtextured expanders demonstrated a significantly higher rate of clinically relevant rotation compared with POLYtxt expanders. These findings suggest that microarchitectural differences between surfaces classified as microtextured may influence rotational stability. When Siltex expanders are used, additional stabilization measures such as fixation tabs should be considered.
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.