Complications of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Implant Capsulectomy: An Analysis of 7486 Patients Using Nationwide Outcomes Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing demand for breast capsular surgery to treat various benign and malignant implant-related pathologies, high-quality evidence elucidating complication profiles of capsulectomy and capsulotomy is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide the largest-scale analysis of associated outcomes and complications using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) database, and to investigate clinical scenarios that may subject patients to increased risks for complications, most notably extent of capsular surgery (complete vs partial) and index indication of implantation (aesthetic vs reconstructive). METHODS: An analysis of the TOPS database from 2008 to 2019 was performed. CPT codes were used to identify complete capsulectomy and partial capsulectomy/capsulotomy cases. Breast implant exchange procedures constituted procedural controls. RESULTS: In total, 7486 patients (10,703 breasts) undergoing capsulectomy or capsulotomy were assessed. Relative to controls, capsulectomy (4.40% vs 5.79%), but not capsulotomy (4.40% vs 4.50%), demonstrated higher overall complication rates. Both capsulectomies (0.83% vs 0.23%) and capsulotomies (0.56% vs 0.23%) also had greater rates of seroma relative to controls. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that reconstructive patients, relative to aesthetic patients, experienced greater overall complications (6.76% vs 4.34%), and increased risks for seroma (1.06% vs 0.47%), dehiscence (0.46% vs 0.14%), surgical site infections (1.03% vs 0.23%), and implant loss (0.52% vs 0.23%). A detailed synthesis of 30-day outcomes, including all patient- and breast-specific complications, for both capsulectomy and capsulotomy, stratified according to all potential confounders, is presented herein. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeries on the breast capsule are safe overall, although complete capsulectomies and reconstructive patients are associated with significantly increased operative risks. The present findings will enhance patient selection, counseling, and informed consent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".