Subglandular Breast Augmentation with Textured, Anatomic, Cohesive Silicone Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Allergan Style 410 implant is a textured, anatomic, highly cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant. Despite its widespread use in both Europe and Canada, limited data exist regarding long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes using the Style 410 implant for primary subglandular breast augmentation. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who underwent primary subglandular breast augmentation through an inframammary incision with the Style 410 implant. Patient demographics and implant characteristics were documented. Complications were examined, along with reoperation rate. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2011, 440 consecutive patients were identified, with 16.6 percent of patients experiencing a complication and 10.7 percent requiring reoperation. The most common complication was malrotation, experienced by 5.2 percent of patients; this was largely managed nonoperatively. Baker grade III or IV capsular contracture occurred in 1.8 percent of patients, and 1.4 percent of patients presented with late seroma. No cases of anaplastic large cell lymphoma were identified. The most frequent indication for reoperation was revision breast surgery for inadequate cosmetic result (3.6 percent of patients). Larger implant volume correlated with significantly higher complication rates; however, implant profile did not. CONCLUSIONS: The complication and reoperation rates with the Style 410 implant are consistent with those of other implants. This device may possess certain inherent advantages over other breast implants currently available; however, there are also several problems associated with textured anatomic implants that must be considered when deciding on the best approach to breast augmentation for a patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".