Literature DB >> 19338941

Comparative double blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants.

Tal Friedman, Nadav Davidovitch, Michael Scheflan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Highly cohesive round or shaped implants are used today by most plastic surgeons performing breast augmentation outside North America.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to (1) compare aesthetic outcomes of round versus shaped implants in breast augmentation by defining the preferences of the general female population and plastic surgeons towards two groups of augmented breasts (implanted with either round or shaped devices); and (2) to determine whether or not plastic surgeons could identify the type of implant used in each patient based on the postoperative appearance.
METHODS: The study surveyed 30 breast augmentation patients, 15 with shaped implants and 15 with round devices. Two cohort categories evaluated the postoperative photographs of the patients: the first group comprised 235 female lay respondents and the second group included 11 male plastic surgeons. The lay respondents were asked to score breast beauty and naturalness, and to assess the upper pole. The plastic surgeons were asked similar questions and were additionally asked to try to identify the implant type.
RESULTS: With respect to "breast beauty," both respondent categories scored round and shaped implant patients similarly. With regard to "naturalness," both groups scored round implant patients significantly higher (P < .001). Concerning upper pole assessment, the round implant group was scored higher and better than the shaped implant group (P < .001). The plastic surgeons' correct identification rate was 64% for round implants, and 47% for shaped implants.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that in the hands of an experienced surgeon who takes all soft tissue variables into consideration, the aesthetic result may not be differentiable when using round versus shaped implants in well-selected patients.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 19338941     DOI: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthet Surg J        ISSN: 1090-820X            Impact factor:   4.283


  7 in total

Review 1.  Advising patients about breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Christopher S Parham; Summer E Hanson; Charles E Butler; M Bradley Calobrace; Raylene Hollrah; Terri Macgregor; Mark W Clemens
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

Review 2.  Aesthetic breast surgery: putting in context-a narrative review.

Authors:  Pankaj G Roy; Zhiyan Yan; Shashank Nigam; Kavish Maheshwari
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-09

3.  The New Method of Pocket Forming for Breast Implant Placement in Augmentation Mammaplasty: Dual Plane Subfascial.

Authors:  Reuf Karabeg; Malik Jakirlic; Amela Karabeg; Danijela Crnogorac; Ilijas Aslani
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2019-06

4.  The Emerging Crisis of Stakeholders in Implant-based Augmentation Mammaplasty in Korea.

Authors:  Jae Hong Kim; Nam Sun Paik; Sang Yu Nam; Younghye Cho; Heung Kyu Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  "Topographic Shift": a new digital approach to evaluating topographic changes of the female breast.

Authors:  Luisa Lotter; Vanessa Brébant; Andreas Eigenberger; Robin Hartmann; Karolina Mueller; Magnus Baringer; Lukas Prantl; Daniel Schiltz
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth.

Authors:  Luisa Lotter; Isabel Zucal; Vanessa Brébant; Norbert Heine; Robin Hartmann; Karolina Mueller; Lukas Prantl; Daniel Schiltz
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 7.  The Facial Aging Process From the "Inside Out".

Authors:  Arthur Swift; Steven Liew; Susan Weinkle; Julie K Garcia; Michael B Silberberg
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 4.283

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.