IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0116071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Postoperative Incidence Rate of Capsular Contracture among Different Breast Implants: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xing Liu
  • Liang Zhou
  • Fuqiang Pan
  • Yang Gao
  • Xi Yuan
  • Dongli Fan

Abstract

Background: A large number of clinical studies have reported that the different materials used in breast implants were a possible cause of the different incidence rates of capsular contracture observed in patients after implantation. However, this theory lacks comprehensive support from evidence-based medicine, and considerable controversy remains. Objectives: In this study, a cumulative systematic review examined breast augmentation that used implants with textured or smooth surfaces to analyze the effects of these two types of implants on the occurrence of postoperative capsular contracture. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of literature databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, for clinical reports on the incidence of capsular contracture after the implantation of breast prostheses. We performed a cumulative meta-analysis on the incidence of capsular contracture in order from small to large sample sizes and conducted subgroup analyses according to the prosthetic material used, the implant pocket placement, the incision type and the duration of follow-up. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as the final pooled statistics. Results: This meta-analysis included 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two retrospective studies. The cumulative comparison of textured and smooth breast implants showed statistical significance at 2.13 (95% CI, 1.18-3.86) when the fourth study was entered into the analysis. With the inclusion of more reports, the final results indicated that smooth breast implants were more likely to be associated with capsular contracture, with statistical significance at 3.10 (95% CI, 2.23-4.33). In the subgroup analyses, the subgroups based on implant materials included the silicone implant group and the saline implant group, with significant pooled statistical levels of 4.05 (95% CI, 1.97-8.31) and 3.12 (95% CI, 2.19-4.42), respectively. According to implant pocket placement, a subglandular group and a submuscular group were included in the analyses, and only the subglandular group had a statistically significant pooled result of 3.59 (95% CI, 2.43-5.30). Four subgroups were included in the analyses according to incision type: the inframammary incision group, the periareolar incision group, the transaxillary incision group and the mastectomy incision group. Among these groups, only the pooled results of the inframammary and mastectomy incision groups were statistically significant, at 2.82 (95% CI, 1.30-6.11) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.17-4.50), respectively. Three follow-up duration subgroups were included in the analyses: the one-year group, the two- to three-year group and the ≥five-year group. These subgroups had statistically significant results of 4.67 (95% CI, 2.35-9.28), 3.42 (95% CI, 2.26-5.16) and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.64-4.49), respectively. Conclusion: In mammaplasty, the use of textured implants reduces the incidence of postoperative capsular contracture. Differences in implant pocket placement and incision type are also likely to affect the incidence of capsular contracture; however, this conclusion awaits further study.

Suggested Citation

  • Xing Liu & Liang Zhou & Fuqiang Pan & Yang Gao & Xi Yuan & Dongli Fan, 2015. "Comparison of the Postoperative Incidence Rate of Capsular Contracture among Different Breast Implants: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116071
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116071
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116071&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0116071?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116071. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.