Background: This study provides the first large-volume (1000 implant) comparison of the deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants versus a control group of Mentor Siltex textured saline implants.
Methods: A consecutive series of 500 Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants was compared with a consecutive series of 500 Mentor Siltex breast implants. Each breast implant was evaluated for a 4-year period, and the annual deflation rate (number of deflations during a given year divided by the total number of implants) and cumulative deflation rate (cumulative total of deflations through a given year divided by the total number of implants) were recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using the Fisher's exact test at year 1 and the chi-square analysis at years 2 through 4.
Results: The cumulative deflation rates of the Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was as follows: year 1, 1.2 percent; year 2, 5.6 percent; year 3, 11.4 percent; and year 4, 15.4 percent. The cumulative deflation rates of the Mentor implants was: year 1, 0.2 percent; year 2, 0.6 percent; year 3, 1.6 percent; and year 4, 4.4 percent. At year 1, the difference between deflation rates was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p > 0.05). However, at year 2 (chi-square, 13.29; p < 0.001), year 3 (chi-square, 37.91; p < 0.001), and year 4 (chi-square, 32.69; p < 0.001), the difference was statistically significant.
Conclusions: There was a statistically significant difference between the overall deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants and Mentor Siltex breast implants at year 2, year 3, and year 4. After 4 years, the 15.56 percent cumulative deflation rate of Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was over 3.5 times higher than the 4.31 percent deflation rate of the Mentor Siltex implants. There may be several factors contributing to the higher deflation rate seen in Poly Implant Prosthesis implants, including possible in vitro deflation before implantation and silicone shell curing technique. Nevertheless, this statistically significant deflation difference must be taken into account when balancing the risks and benefits of Poly Implant Prosthesis breast implants.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000218199.28082.9d | DOI Listing |
Aesthetic Plast Surg
January 2025
Directorate General of Medical Devices and Pharmaceutical service of the Italian Ministry of Health, Via Ribotta 5, 00144, Rome, Italy.
Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Med
December 2024
University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Phoenix.
Background: Breast implants interfere with myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT) and echocardiographic windows leading to increased false positive results. To validate this concept, we hypothesized that patients with breast implants should have higher positive cardiac testing and coronary angiogram with lower percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates compared to women without a breast implant.
Methods: Using ICD 10 codes for breast implants, abnormal results of cardiac functional study, coronary angiogram, and percutaneous coronary interventions, we evaluated any association between these parameters in adult women with breast implants utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.
Eur J Surg Oncol
December 2024
Department of Surgical Oncology, Université de Caen Normandie, François Baclesse Centre, 3 avenue Général Harris, 14000, Caen, France. Electronic address:
Background: Breast reconstruction practices, predominantly implant-based, have evolved, with meshes aiding in overcoming traditional limitations. However, data comparing mesh-assisted prepectoral reconstruction with implants alone are lacking. This study aimed to assess whether synthetic meshes in prepectoral reconstruction impact postoperative complications.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMC Cancer
December 2024
Department of Plastic Surgery, University College London, London, UK.
Introduction: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer amongst women in the United Kingdom, with implant-based reconstruction (IBR) using Acellular Dermal Matrices (ADM) gaining popularity for post-mastectomy procedures. This study compares outcomes of different ADMs that are commonly used in women undergoing IBR, this was short and long-term complications.
Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CDSR databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines, focusing on women undergoing IBR with FlexHD, AlloDerm, Bovine, or Porcine ADMs.
In Vivo
December 2024
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland;
Background/aim: Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is widely employed to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed at analyzing LMWH use and evaluating its efficacy and safety in immediate implant-based post-mastectomy breast reconstruction.
Patients And Methods: A monocentric retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) from January 2021 to December 2023.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!