Literature DB >> 17399656

Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses.

P Panettiere1, L Marchetti, D Accorsi.   

Abstract

The flexibility of lower cohesivity silicone prostheses is the main reason for wrinkling, rippling and evidence of implant edges. The soft cohesive silicone implants promise to minimize such effects with minimal softness reduction. Forty consecutive patients received soft cohesive prostheses (INAMED Style 110 ST) and were studied prospectively. A historical group, made up by the 40 consecutive patients who received lower cohesivity silicone implants (INAMED Style 110) in the immediately preceding months, was used as a control. Wrinkling, prosthetic edge perceptibility and capsular contracture degree were assessed six months after surgery. The tissue coverage thickness was measured using ultrasonography. The patients were then asked to evaluate the breast softness by means of an anonymous questionnaire, where they also expressed their overall satisfaction by means of the five-steps linear analogical scales. The wrinkling prevalence was 9.2% in the soft cohesive group vs. 55% in the lower cohesivity one (p<0.01). The edge perceptibility was 14% in the soft cohesive group vs. 22% in the lower cohesivity one (no statistical significance). The coverage tissue thickness was not found to be significantly related to the wrinkling prevalence or to the edge perceptibility. The capsular contracture rate was almost identical in the two groups (Baker II: 2.6% vs. 2.7%, no Baker III or IV). A higher stiffness was noted in the soft cohesive group (average score: 4.2 vs. 4.4 in the control group, p<0.05), but the overall satisfaction degree was higher for soft cohesive implants (average score: 4.5 vs. 3.8, p<0.01). The soft cohesive prostheses offered better overall results than the lower cohesivity silicone prostheses, even if a longer term follow-up should be advised. The soft cohesive prostheses showed a higher firmness, but this seemed not to have any influence on the overall satisfaction degree.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17399656     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.04.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

1.  Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

Authors:  Joshua Vorstenbosch; Colleen M McCarthy; Meghana G Shamsunder; Thais O Polanco; Stefan Dabic; Itay Wiser; Evan Matros; Joseph Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Michele R Cavalli; Elizabeth Encarnacion; Meghan Lee; Babak J Mehrara; Jonas A Nelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 5.169

2.  Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) Expression in Contracted Capsules Compared to Uncontracted Capsules.

Authors:  Y Bachour; M J P F Ritt; R Heijmans; F B Niessen; S P Verweij
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Ten-Year Safety Data for Eurosilicone's Round and Anatomical Silicone Gel Breast Implants.

Authors:  Franck Duteille; Pierre Perrot; Marie-Hélène Bacheley; Erin Bell; Sharon Stewart
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2019-04-27

4.  Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM.

Authors:  Ara A Salibian; Jonathan M Bekisz; Hudson C Kussie; Vishal D Thanik; Jamie P Levine; Mihye Choi; Nolan S Karp
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-08-10

5.  Five-year Safety Data for Eurosilicone's Round and Anatomical Silicone Gel Breast Implants.

Authors:  Franck Duteille; Michel Rouif; Sophie Laurent; Máirín Cannon
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-05-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.