Capsular contracture in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2024 |
| Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
| 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 |