Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Christodoulou, Neophytos
Data de Publicação: 2024
Outros Autores: Secanho, Murilo [UNESP], Kokosis, George, Malgor, Rafael D., Winocour, Julian, Yu, Jason W., Mathes, David W., Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
Tipo de documento: Outros
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/308812
Resumo: Background: Capsular contracture after implant-based breast reconstruction is not an uncommon problem and affects reconstruction outcomes. It can be influenced by various factors, such as the plane of implant placement, implant surface and implant type. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how the abovementioned risk factors can affect capsular contracture rates. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Library were searched. Comparison groups included subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, smooth versus textured implants and saline versus silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each group. The level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies compared subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates [OR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.75–1.95; P = 0.44]. Five studies compared smooth versus textured implants, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50–1.93; P = 0.97). Two studies compared saline versus silicone implants for capsular contracture. Patients receiving saline implants had significantly lower capsular contracture rates than silicone implants (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.43; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction using saline implants demonstrated reduced capsular contracture rates compared to silicone implants. However, no significant differences were observed in capsular contracture rates between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement and smooth versus textured implants.
id UNSP_fa3688f320dbe29ce0f4229bb34a12ba
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/308812
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysisCapsular contractureImplant-based breast reconstructionSaline implantsSilicone implantsSmooth implantsTextured implantsBackground: Capsular contracture after implant-based breast reconstruction is not an uncommon problem and affects reconstruction outcomes. It can be influenced by various factors, such as the plane of implant placement, implant surface and implant type. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how the abovementioned risk factors can affect capsular contracture rates. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Library were searched. Comparison groups included subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, smooth versus textured implants and saline versus silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each group. The level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies compared subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates [OR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.75–1.95; P = 0.44]. Five studies compared smooth versus textured implants, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50–1.93; P = 0.97). Two studies compared saline versus silicone implants for capsular contracture. Patients receiving saline implants had significantly lower capsular contracture rates than silicone implants (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.43; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction using saline implants demonstrated reduced capsular contracture rates compared to silicone implants. However, no significant differences were observed in capsular contracture rates between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement and smooth versus textured implants.Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills RoadSão Paulo State University – UNESPDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department of Surgery RUSH Medical CollegeDivision of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CenterDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusSão Paulo State University – UNESPAddenbrooke's HospitalUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)RUSH Medical CollegeAnschutz Medical CenterUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusChristodoulou, NeophytosSecanho, Murilo [UNESP]Kokosis, GeorgeMalgor, Rafael D.Winocour, JulianYu, Jason W.Mathes, David W.Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos2025-04-29T20:13:40Z2024-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/other131-143http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, v. 98, p. 131-143.1878-05391748-6815https://hdl.handle.net/11449/30881210.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.0572-s2.0-85203283191Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-04-30T13:23:49Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/308812Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462025-04-30T13:23:49Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Christodoulou, Neophytos
Capsular contracture
Implant-based breast reconstruction
Saline implants
Silicone implants
Smooth implants
Textured implants
title_short Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
author Christodoulou, Neophytos
author_facet Christodoulou, Neophytos
Secanho, Murilo [UNESP]
Kokosis, George
Malgor, Rafael D.
Winocour, Julian
Yu, Jason W.
Mathes, David W.
Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
author_role author
author2 Secanho, Murilo [UNESP]
Kokosis, George
Malgor, Rafael D.
Winocour, Julian
Yu, Jason W.
Mathes, David W.
Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Addenbrooke's Hospital
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
RUSH Medical College
Anschutz Medical Center
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Christodoulou, Neophytos
Secanho, Murilo [UNESP]
Kokosis, George
Malgor, Rafael D.
Winocour, Julian
Yu, Jason W.
Mathes, David W.
Kaoutzanis, Christodoulos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Capsular contracture
Implant-based breast reconstruction
Saline implants
Silicone implants
Smooth implants
Textured implants
topic Capsular contracture
Implant-based breast reconstruction
Saline implants
Silicone implants
Smooth implants
Textured implants
description Background: Capsular contracture after implant-based breast reconstruction is not an uncommon problem and affects reconstruction outcomes. It can be influenced by various factors, such as the plane of implant placement, implant surface and implant type. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how the abovementioned risk factors can affect capsular contracture rates. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Library were searched. Comparison groups included subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, smooth versus textured implants and saline versus silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each group. The level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies compared subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates [OR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.75–1.95; P = 0.44]. Five studies compared smooth versus textured implants, with no statistically significant differences in capsular contracture rates (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50–1.93; P = 0.97). Two studies compared saline versus silicone implants for capsular contracture. Patients receiving saline implants had significantly lower capsular contracture rates than silicone implants (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.43; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction using saline implants demonstrated reduced capsular contracture rates compared to silicone implants. However, no significant differences were observed in capsular contracture rates between subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement and smooth versus textured implants.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024-11-01
2025-04-29T20:13:40Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format other
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, v. 98, p. 131-143.
1878-0539
1748-6815
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/308812
10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057
2-s2.0-85203283191
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057
https://hdl.handle.net/11449/308812
identifier_str_mv Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, v. 98, p. 131-143.
1878-0539
1748-6815
10.1016/j.bjps.2024.08.057
2-s2.0-85203283191
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 131-143
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1834482492790276096