Dataset Information

Reoperation Rate After Primary Augmentation With Smooth, Textured, High Fill, Cohesive, Round Breast Implants (RANBI-I Study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reoperation after primary breast augmentation remains an important clinical issue.

Objective

The authors sought to evaluate incidence and causes of reoperation in patients who underwent primary augmentation.

Methods

This retrospective, noninterventional study conducted at 16 Canadian sites reviewed medical records and patient-completed questionnaires of women who underwent primary breast augmentation with smooth or textured Natrelle Inspira implants containing TruForm 1 or TruForm 2 gel. Patients were aged ≥22 years, received implants via inframammary fold incision, and returned for follow-up at 2 to 4 years.

Results

A total of 319 women received Inspira implants (smooth TruForm 2, n = 205; textured TruForm 2, n = 99; smooth or textured TruForm 1, n = 15). At follow-up, 30 women (9.4%) had undergone reoperation, including 19 (9.3%) in the smooth TruForm 2 subgroup and 9 (9.1%) in the textured TruForm 2 subgroup. The mean time to reoperation was 1.2 years; the risk rate for reoperation was 9.9% at 3 years. The most common reasons for reoperation were implant malposition (36.7%), capsular contracture (33.3%), and the patient's request for a change in implant size or style (20.0%). Most women were very or somewhat satisfied with the initial surgery (89.3% overall; 90.7% smooth TruForm 2; 86.9% textured TruForm 2). Thirty-four women (10.7%) reported adverse events, including 20 (9.8%) in the smooth TruForm 2 subgroup and 14 (14.1%) in the textured TruForm 2 subgroup.

Conclusions

This analysis suggests that Natrelle Inspira TruForm 2 implants are safe when used in primary breast augmentation, resulting in low reoperation rates that are consistent with those for other breast implants.

Level of evidence: 4

SUBMITTER: Khanna J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6853655 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe posttreatment pain associated with breast augmentation is a top concern of most patients and can affect the decision concerning surgery.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the posttreatment pain and recovery times of patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with lightweight vs full-mass implants of similar volumes. The authors hypothesized that the reduced mechanical strain applied by lightweight implants elicits less pain.MethodsIn this retrospective, observational study, 100 women who had undergone primary breast augmentation with either a lightweight breast implant or a traditional full-mass silicone implant (n = 50), were contacted by phone and asked about their posttreatment experiences and overall satisfaction with the outcome. All women were treated by the same surgical team, and the two groups were matched by date of surgery.ResultsMost patients in the two cohorts had a self-reported preoperative B cup size and relatively high tolerance to pain. On average, LWBI patients were 6 years older than those undergoing full-mass implantation (32.4 ± 8.7 vs 26.2 ± 8.0; P = .0004) and more had experienced at least one pregnancy (61.2% vs 24%, P = .0002). LWBI patients opted for implants 39 ± 28.4 cc larger than patients in the control group. Subglandular placement was selected in most cases (LWBI: 83.7% and full-mass: 90.0%). Mean posttreatment pain was lower in the LWBI cohort (5.5 ± 2.4 vs 6.5 ± 2.4) and required a shorter duration of analgesics (3.87 ± 1.77 days vs 5.26 ± 2.94 days; P = .009). Age- and parity-adjusted measures demonstrated a respective 2-day and 5-day shorter recovery period and return to normal activities interval in the LWBI versus full-mass implant cohorts (P = .04 and P = .002, respectively).ConclusionsAs compared to traditional silicone filled full-mass implants, breast augmentations with B-Lite lightweight breast implants (G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel) elicit less posttreatment pain and require less down-time, ultimately, meeting patients' quest for desired breast shape at minimal discomfort.Level of evidence 3

Project description:Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).