Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants

Calaes, Ivana Leme de; Motta, Marcos Matias; Basso, Rafael de Campos; Calderoni, Davi Reis; Kharmandayan, Paulo

doi:10.1590/s0102-865020200040000007

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Clinical Investigation • Acta Cir. Bras. 35 (4) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-865020200040000007 copy

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants¹1. Ferreira JA. The various etiological factors of “Hard Capsule” formation in breast augmentations. Aesth Plast Surg. 1984;8:109-17.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants.

Methods

Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam – Lifesil® – and microtexturized silicone – Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.

Silicone Elastomers; Prostheses and Implants; Breast Implants; Mammaplasty

Implants volume		Mean	Median	N	P-value
Right	Group A	287.9	275	29	0.013
Right	Group B	264.7	250	29	0.013
Left	Group A	292.2	275	29	0.002
Left	Group B	258.6	250	29	0.002
Medium	Group A	290.1	275	29	0.005
Medium	Group B	261.6	250	29	0.005

Scar		Group A		Group B		Total		P-value
Scar		N	%	N	%	N	%	P-value
PO30d	Hyperchromic	14	48.3%	13	44.8%	27	46.6%	0.376
	Hypertrophic	2	6.9%	0	0.0%	2	3.4%
	Keloid	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
	Good Quality	13	44.8%	16	55.2%	29	50%
PO120d	Hyperchromic	6	20.7%	6	20.7%	12	20.7%	0.732
	Hypertrophic	6	20.7%	7	24.1%	13	22.4%
	Keloid	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
	Good Quality	17	58.6%	16	55.2%	33	56.9%
PO360d	Hyperchromic	0	0.0%	3	10.3%	3	5.2%	0.097
	Hypertrophic	1	3.4%	3	10.3%	4	6.9%
	Keloid	1	3.4%	0	0.0%	1	1.7%
	Good Quality	27	93.2%	23	79.4%	50	86.2%
PO2y	Hyperchromic	0	0.0%	1	5.3%	1	2.6%	0.615
	Hypertrophic	1	5.3%	2	10.5%	3	7.9%
	Keloid	1	5.3%	0	0.0%	1	2.6%
	Good Quality	17	89.4%	16	84.2%	33	86.9%
PO3y	Hyperchromic	1	12.5%	0	0.0%	1	6.3%	0.076
	Hypertrophic	1	12.5%	0	0.0%	1	6.3%
	Keloid	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
	Good Quality	6	75.0%	8	100.0%	14	87.4%

Breast contracture		Group A		Group B		Total		P-value
Breast contracture		N	%	N	%	N	%	P-value
30 days of postoperative follow-up	Absent	29	100%	29	100%	58	100%	- × -
120 days of postoperative follow-up	Absent	29	100%	28	96.6%	57	98.3%	0.313
120 days of postoperative follow-up	Baker 2	0	0.0%	1	3.4%	1	1.7%	0.313
360 days of postoperative follow-up	Absent	29	100%	27	93.1%	56	96.6%	0.150
360 days of postoperative follow-up	Baker 2	0	0.0%	2	6.9%	2	3.4%	0.150
2 years of postoperative follow-up	Absent	19	100%	17	89.5%	36	94.7%	0.146
2 years of postoperative follow-up	Baker 2	0	0.0%	2	10.5%	2	5.3%	0.146
3 years of postoperative follow-up	Absent	8	100%	7	87.5%	15	93.8%	0.302
3 years of postoperative follow-up	Baker 3 & 4	0	0.0%	1	12.5%	1	6.3%	0.302

Satisfaction Scores		Group A		Group B		Total		P-value
Satisfaction Scores		N	%	N	%	N	%	P-value
PO30d	Dissatisfied	0	0.0%	1	3.4%	1	1.7%	0.209
	Satisfied	3	10.3%	7	24.1%	10	17.2%
	Very Satisfied	26	89.7%	21	72.4%	47	81.0%
PO120d	Dissatisfied	1	3.4%	1	3.4%	2	3.4%	0.252
	Indifferent	0	0.0%	1	3.4%	1	1.7%
	Satisfied	3	10.3%	8	27.6%	11	19.0%
	Very Satisfied	25	86.2%	19	65.5%	44	75.9%
PO360d	Satisfied	4	13.8%	11	37.9%	15	25.9%	0.036
PO360d	Very Satisfied	25	86.2%	18	62.1%	43	74.1%	0.036
PO2y	Satisfied	3	15.8%	8	42.1%	11	28.9%	0.074
PO2y	Very Satisfied	16	84.2%	11	57.9%	27	71.1%	0.074
PO3y	Satisfied	2	25.0%	3	37.5%	5	31.3%	0.590
PO3y	Very Satisfied	6	75.0%	5	62.5%	11	68.8%	0.590

Ptosis		Group A		Group B		Total		P-value
Ptosis		N	%	N	%	N	%	P-value
PO30d	Absent	29	100%	29	100%	58	100%	- x -
PO120d	Absent	28	96.6%	26	8.,7%	54	93.1%	0.300
PO120d	Pseudoptosis	1	3.4%	3	10.3%	4	6.9%	0.300
PO360d	Absent	27	93.1%	27	93.1%	54	93.1%	0.513
	Grade I	1	3.4%	0	0.0%	1	1.7%
	Pseudoptosis	1	3.4%	2	6.9%	3	5.2%
PO2y	Absent	18	94.7%	19	100%	37	97.4%	0.311
PO2y	Pseudoptosis	1	5.3%	0	0.0%	1	2.6%	0.311
PO3y	Absent	8	100%	8	100%	16	100%	- x -

Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia https://actacirbras.com.br/ - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: actacirbras@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Ivana Leme de Calaes Rua Alberto Macchi, 43 casa 30 Condominio Chateaux de Notre Dame 13092-801 Campinas – SP Brasil Tel.: (55 19)98290-4777 ivanacalaes@yahoo.com.br

Brasil

Brasil

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants11. Ferreira JA. The various etiological factors of “Hard Capsule” formation in breast augmentations. Aesth Plast Surg. 1984;8:109-17.

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants¹1. Ferreira JA. The various etiological factors of “Hard Capsule” formation in breast augmentations. Aesth Plast Surg. 1984;8:109-17.