IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Breast Implants: Core Study Results at 6 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The structured breast implant uses different technology than saline or silicone gel implants, making it a third type of implant. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada granted approval in November of 2014. This implant is filled with saline but has an internal structure consisting of a series of nested shells that support the upper pole when upright and control fluid movement. It combines certain key features and benefits of saline and silicone gel implants. As with saline, the filler is only saline, which women like for peace of mind in case of rupture/deflation. As with silicone gel, it has a natural feel, but without the risk of silent rupture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration-recommended magnetic resonance imaging scans-women can simply look in the mirror and know their implants are intact. METHODS: This U.S. trial enrolled 502 women: 399 primary augmentations and 103 replacements of existing augmentation implants. Investigators were 45 American Board of Plastic Surgery-certified plastic surgeons at 35 sites. Of the 502 women enrolled, 438 (87.3 percent) completed 6-year follow-up visits, a higher percentage than other Core breast implant trials. RESULTS: At 6 years, patient satisfaction was 89.7 percent for primary and 91.6 percent for replacement augmentations; surgeon satisfaction was 92.6 percent for primary and 94.0 percent for replacement augmentation. Kaplan-Meier adverse event rates were as follows: Baker grade III and IV capsular contracture, 5.7 percent for primary and 11.5 percent for replacement augmentation; and rupture/deflation, 1.8 percent for primary and 4.7 percent for replacement augmentation. CONCLUSION: Six-year results from 438 women show that the structured breast implant has high patient and surgeon satisfaction, a low rate of capsular contracture, and a low rate of rupture/deflation. 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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".