Incidence of Capsular Contracture in Silicone Versus Saline Cosmetic Augmentation Mammoplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Capsular contracture after augmentation mammoplasty occurs at a rate of 15% to 45%. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of implant core type (silicone versus saline) on the rate of capsular contracture in augmentation mammoplasty. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted through a search of three electronic databases. Two reviewers independently scanned titles yielded by the search and identified potentially relevant papers. Inter-reviewer variability and the scientific quality of the articles were assessed. Meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Eighty-eight titles of potential relevance were selected from the 393 articles yielded by the search. Inter-rater agreement for selection of potentially relevant articles was 84% (kappa=0.54). Four comparative studies were included in the analysis. Scientific quality scores of the included studies ranged from 5 of 14 to 9 of 14. Three of the four studies reported a higher rate of capsular contracture in patients with silicone implants. A combined odds ratio calculated on two of the studies found a 2.25-fold increased risk of capsular contracture in patients who received silicone implants. Eight series of patients who received cohesive gel silicone implants reported rates of capsular contracture from 0% to 13.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of capsular contracture were found in patients who received silicone implants when compared with those who received saline implants. However, the scientific quality of the comparative studies to date on this subject is poor. Recent series evaluating cohesive gel implants report relatively low rates of capsular contracture. A randomized controlled trial comparing rates of capsular contracture in cohesive gel and saline implants is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".