de Calaes IL, Motta MM, Basso RDC, Calderoni DR, Kharmandayan P. Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants.
Acta Cir Bras 2020;
35:e202000407. [PMID:
32555938 PMCID:
PMC7292626 DOI:
10.1590/s0102-865020200040000007]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2019] [Revised: 02/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
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.
Collapse