MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Augmentation Mammaplasty after Breast Enhancement with Macrolane

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

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePtosisBreast augmentationMammaplastySurgeryBreast lumpsLeft breastBreast surgeryRight breastPectoralis major muscleImplantBreast cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from 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

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207