Canadian Society for Aesthetic (Cosmetic) Plastic Surgery/Société canadienne de chirurgie plastique esthétique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Implant selectIon In breast augmentatIonDc Hammond grand rapids, michigan One of the most critical variables related to successful breast augmentation is implant selection.Despite the numerous choices with regard to implant design, and the many ways such variables including shape, texture and fill can be mixed and matched, there are very consistent and well-defined principles that can be identified to enhance the aesthetic success of the procedure.Such principles include maximizing soft tissue cover, merging volume with skin elasticity to enhance a harmonious relationship with the native breast, matching implant dimensions to the patient's anatomy, and precisely controlling the boundaries of the breast pocket.In particular, respecting the anatomy of the inframammary fold can greatly affect the overall result.By combining intelligent and strategic manipulation of these variables, and coupling them with artistic technical expertise, optimal results in breast augmentation can be achieved. comparatIve outcomes of smootH versus textureD rounD gel Implants In prImary breast augmentatIonKm Davidge, r levine, mH brown toronto, ontario PurPose: Textured gel implants have several potential advantages over smooth devices including lower rates of capsular contracture, reduced implant mobility, and less long-term stretch of lower pole tissues.Disadvantages of textured implants include greater potential for contamination during insertion, increased seroma rate, and traction rippling.No prior direct comparison of textured versus smooth gel implants has been made.This study sought to compare the experience and clinical outcomes associated with textured versus smooth round gel implants in primary breast augmentation.Methods: A consecutive series of patients undergoing primary bilateral breast augmentation with round silicone gel implants (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) were identified from two breast augmentation practices.Patients receiving textured versus smooth implants were compared on clinical, operative, and outcome (complications, reoperations) characteristics.A stratified comparison of complications and reoperations by implant pocket was also performed.Parametric (Student's t test, chi square test) and nonparametric tests were utilized for statistical comparisons, as appropriate.results: 336 patients (mean age 32.0 years; mean f/u 8.2 months) were included.Patients receiving smooth (n=165) and textured (n=171) round gel implants were similar with respect to demographics and indications for augmentation.Moderate profile implants were most common in both study groups, but median implant size was slightly smaller in the textured group (300 vs. 325, p=0.003).Textured devices were more frequently placed in a subpectoral pocket (63.7% vs. 40.0%,p<0.0001), and through an inframammary fold incision (87.1% vs. 77.6%,p=0.053).Total number of complications (p=0.004) and reoperations (p=0.017) were lower in patients with textured versus smooth implants.Patients receiving textured implants had fewer capsular contractures than patients receiving smooth implants when implants were placed in the subglandular position (5.0% vs. 14.7%, p=0.059).This effect was lost for implants placed in a subpectoral pocket. ConClusions:In this series, complications and reoperations were less frequent with textured implants.Our findings support existing evidence that textured implants are associated with decreased capsular contracture rates, and that this benefit exists mainly for subglandular augmentation.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».