Cohesive Silicone Gel Breast Implants in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cohesive silicone gel breast implants are composed of a textured silicone elastomer shell and are filled with cohesive silicone gel. Cohesive gel is formed by increasing the number of cross-links between gel molecules, which results in an implant that has better retention of shape and is less likely to fold or collapse, especially in the upper pole. METHODS: The initial 150 consecutive patients who received cohesive gel breast implants by the senior author (Brown) were included in the study. A retrospective chart review was carried out to analyze patient demographics, diagnosis, indication for cohesive gel selection, procedure performed, implant selected, and complications. All implants were manufactured by Inamed Aesthetics and were either style 410, CML, or CMH. RESULTS: One woman underwent unilateral augmentation for breast asymmetry and 117 women underwent bilateral breast augmentation. Of the 235 implants used, all were model 410 anatomical implants, with the majority being MM, MF, FM, or FF styles. Complications occurred in four of 118 patients (3.4 percent). There was one immediate postoperative hematoma, two cases of unilateral Baker II contracture, and one case of asymmetry related to excessive lowering of an inframammary fold. There were no cases of rotation, malposition, infection, rippling, or loss of implant integrity. Thirty-two women underwent breast reconstruction with cohesive gel implants. A total of 50 implants were used in the 32 patients (27 style 410, 19 style CML, and four style CMH). Complications occurred in six of 32 patients (18.8 percent), although five of the six were minor and only one of 32 patients (3.1 percent) required a secondary procedure. There were two seromas, three capsular contractures, and one implant exposure following a skin-sparing mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Cohesive gel implants have the potential for providing a natural breast shape, minimizing the risk of postoperative rippling, and providing a greater degree of safety should the implant lose its integrity. The wide variety of implant shapes and sizes allows for great flexibility in reconstructive surgery, in cases of breast asymmetry, and in primary breast augmentation. Results in our initial 150 patients have been excellent, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, excellent aesthetic outcomes, and very few implant-related complications. Cohesive gel implants are likely to play an important role in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery when silicone gel implants are reintroduced into the North American market.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".