Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants
Abstract Purpose To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants. Methods Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam – Lifesil® – and microtexturized silicone – Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up. Results There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036). Conclusion In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty.
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia
2020
|
| Online Access: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-86502020000400801 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Purpose To evaluate whether silicone foam implants have a different evolution pattern compared to conventional texture implants. Methods Fifty-eight female patients underwent surgery. They were divided into two groups (silicone foam – Lifesil® – and microtexturized silicone – Lifesil®). The evolution was analyzed in postoperative consultations, with physical examination, photographic documentation and filling in a satisfaction questionnaire, in the postoperative period of one month, four months, one year and then annually, up to a maximum of 3 years of follow-up. Results There were no statistically significant differences in presence of rippling, stretch marks, breast ptosis, capsular contracture and quality of scars. There was a higher rate of patients who were very satisfied with the outcome 360 days after surgery in the group receiving silicone foam implants (p = 0.036). Conclusion In short time, silicone foam envelope implants proved to be as reliable as textured silicone envelope implants, making them an option for augmentation mammoplasty. |
|---|