Capsular Contracture After Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.9
Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum Pub Date : 2025-01-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/asjof/ojaf003
Evan Haas, Neophytos Christodoulou, Murilo Secanho, George Kokosis, Rafael D Malgor, Julian Winocour, Jason W Yu, David W Mathes, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
{"title":"Capsular Contracture After Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Evan Haas, Neophytos Christodoulou, Murilo Secanho, George Kokosis, Rafael D Malgor, Julian Winocour, Jason W Yu, David W Mathes, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojaf003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Capsular contracture is characterized by the formation of a fibrous capsule around a breast implant after an augmentation mammaplasty, and often results in pain, firmness, and implant distortion. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate how implant and surgical characteristics affect rates of capsular contracture after breast augmentation. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP), and Cochrane Library. Comparison groups included smooth vs textured implants; subpectoral vs prepectoral implant placement; saline vs silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each of these groups. The inclusion criteria were met in 24 studies. Smooth implants were associated with significantly higher capsular contracture rates compared with textured implants (OR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.92-4.08). Subpectoral implant placement demonstrated significantly reduced capsular contracture rates compared with prepectoral placement (OR = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). No significant difference in capsular contracture rates was found between silicone and saline (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.02-6.69). This meta-analysis suggests that textured-surface implants are associated with lower capsular contracture rates than smooth implants following breast augmentation. Additionally, subpectoral implant placement was associated with significantly reduced rates of capsular contracture compared with prepectoral placement. There was no significant difference in capsular contracture rates between saline and silicone implants. However, the absence of large, randomized controlled trials included in this study underscores the need for prospective investigation of the relationship between implant and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 2 risk: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"7 ","pages":"ojaf003"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojaf003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Capsular contracture is characterized by the formation of a fibrous capsule around a breast implant after an augmentation mammaplasty, and often results in pain, firmness, and implant distortion. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate how implant and surgical characteristics affect rates of capsular contracture after breast augmentation. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (OvidSP), and Cochrane Library. Comparison groups included smooth vs textured implants; subpectoral vs prepectoral implant placement; saline vs silicone implants. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for capsular contracture for each of these groups. The inclusion criteria were met in 24 studies. Smooth implants were associated with significantly higher capsular contracture rates compared with textured implants (OR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.92-4.08). Subpectoral implant placement demonstrated significantly reduced capsular contracture rates compared with prepectoral placement (OR = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). No significant difference in capsular contracture rates was found between silicone and saline (OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.02-6.69). This meta-analysis suggests that textured-surface implants are associated with lower capsular contracture rates than smooth implants following breast augmentation. Additionally, subpectoral implant placement was associated with significantly reduced rates of capsular contracture compared with prepectoral placement. There was no significant difference in capsular contracture rates between saline and silicone implants. However, the absence of large, randomized controlled trials included in this study underscores the need for prospective investigation of the relationship between implant and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes.

Level of evidence 2 risk:

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

隆胸后包膜挛缩:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
乳房包膜挛缩的特征是隆胸术后在乳房植入物周围形成纤维包膜,通常会导致疼痛、僵硬和植入物变形。本荟萃分析的目的是研究隆胸后植入物和手术特征对包膜挛缩率的影响。在PubMed MEDLINE、EMBASE (OvidSP)和Cochrane Library中进行系统评价和荟萃分析。对照组包括光滑种植体和纹理种植体;胸下与胸前植入物放置;生理盐水与硅胶植入物。计算各组包膜挛缩的优势比(ORs)。24项研究符合纳入标准。与纹理种植体相比,光滑种植体的包膜挛缩率明显更高(OR = 2.80, 95% CI, 1.92-4.08)。与胸前植入相比,胸下植入可显著降低囊膜挛缩率(OR = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.25-0.50)。硅胶和生理盐水在包膜挛缩率上无显著差异(OR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.02-6.69)。这项荟萃分析表明,在隆胸后,纹理表面植入物比光滑植入物的包膜挛缩率更低。此外,与胸前植入相比,胸下植入与肩胛挛缩率显著降低相关。生理盐水和硅胶植入物在包膜挛缩率上无显著差异。然而,由于本研究中缺少大型随机对照试验,因此需要对植入物与手术特征和术后结果之间的关系进行前瞻性研究。证据2级风险:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信