MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2316036444 · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000438496.62728.6a

Augmentation Mammaplasty after Breast Enhancement with Macrolane

2014· article· en· W2316036444 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nefer Fallico, Mario Faenza, Luca Andrea Dessy, Manuela Pili, Emilio Trignano

Notice bibliographique

RevuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePtosisBreast augmentationMammaplastySurgeryBreast lumpsLeft breastBreast surgeryRight breastPectoralis major muscleImplantBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir: A 45-year-old woman consulted a dermatologist with the aim of improving a moderate degree of breast ptosis. She underwent bilateral breast augmentation with 250 ml of hyaluronic acid (Macrolane; Q-Med AB, Uppsala, Sweden) to each breast. She presented 6 months later at our medical practice complaining of rapid and asymmetrical volume loss causing worsening of the breast ptosis in association with visible and palpable indurations of the breasts (Fig. 1). The patient was advised to surgically remove the filler and was offered concurrent implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. The patient was scheduled for surgery 6 months after the consultation, 12 months after the Macrolane injections.Fig. 1: Preoperative view of the breasts showing breast ptosis and visible lumpiness, especially in the lower pole of the breast.The breasts were surgically explored. The inferior semiperiareolar incision was chosen in order have direct access to the mammary gland and because of its minimal visibility. Macrolane was found in multiple pockets within the breast parenchyma. The lumps were singularly evacuated by infusing the tissues with saline and squeezing out the hyaluronic acid. A total of 20 lumps were emptied, 12 in the left breast, with one lump identified within the pectoralis major muscle, and eight in the right breast, with one lump found in the axillary cavity. The cysts were not excised in order to avoid reducing the breast volume and altering the breast parenchyma.1 With reference to breast augmentation, dual-plane placement of the prostheses was chosen in order to correct the breast ptosis and adequately cover the implant. Breast enhancement was performed using 345-cc, round, silicone-filled breast implants (Natrelle Inspira TRM; Allergan, Markham, Ontario, Canada). The postoperative course was uneventful. Six months later, the patient had obtained good aesthetic results (Fig. 2).Fig. 2: Postoperative view of the breasts showing correction of the breast ptosis as well as of the Macrolane cysts.Surgical evacuation of multiple hyaluronic acid cysts in association with a dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty was performed in a patient who presented complications after bilateral breast injections with Macrolane. Although similar reports are described in the medical literature,1,2 there are a few aspects that we would like to discuss. We agree with McCleave et al.1 that the breast implant should be positioned in a Macrolane-free pocket in order to avoid an increased risk of infection of the prosthesis. However, as the product is expected to reabsorb over 12 to 18 months,3 we suggest waiting at least 9 to 12 months after the last Macrolane infiltration before performing any surgical procedure, in order to evaluate the actual breast volume and choose the appropriate implant size. Bhat et al.2 described a case of subglandular breast augmentation following previous enhancement with Macrolane. However, since neither the quantity nor the time of reabsorption of Macrolane is predictable, breast size can decrease over time and fail to provide adequate coverage of the prosthetic devices.4 Moreover, the ptosis can worsen. In our opinion, implant position should always be totally or partially (dual-plane) submuscular. In summary, Macrolane injections for breast enhancement can cause, in certain patients, an alteration of mammary anatomic structures of which the surgeon should be aware so that these patients can be offered an optimal aesthetic result. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in the products or devices mentioned in this article. Nefer Fallico, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery “Sapienza” University of Rome Rome, Italy Mario Faenza, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Sassari Sassari, Italy Luca Andrea Dessy, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery “Sapienza” University of Rome Rome, Italy Manuela Pili, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Sassari Sassari, Italy Emilio Trignano, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery “Sapienza” University of Rome Rome, Italy Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Sassari Sassari, Italy

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,299
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,206 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgeryMême sujetReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesTravaux en français237 207