Department of Plastic Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jan 1;41(1):34-44. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa128.
Prosthetic breast reconstruction has been gaining popularity and a variety of implant options are currently available. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of newly developed shaped implants compared with those of conventional round implants. To date, few studies have investigated the outcomes of breast reconstruction with shaped versus round implants.
The present study aimed to comprehensively compare, via meta-analytic methodology, shaped and round breast implant reconstruction in terms of complication profiles and aesthetic satisfaction.
PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies presenting the complication rates for shaped and round implant groups. The relative risks of the following complications between the groups were calculated: infection, seroma, capsular contracture, rupture, rippling, reconstruction failure, and implant exchange or removal. Outcomes of aesthetic satisfaction included aesthetic results and patient-reported outcomes.
Meta-analysis of 8 retrospective cohort studies, representing 2490 cases of implant-based breast reconstruction, was performed. There were no significant differences in the risks of infection, seroma, capsular contracture, and reconstruction failure between the 2 groups. The risks of implant rupture and rippling were significantly reduced with shaped implants. In a subgroup analysis of shaped/textured and round/smooth implants, the risk of infection was significantly enhanced in the former, whereas incidences of other complications, including capsular contracture and reconstruction failure, were similar. Aesthetic satisfaction analysis of the 2 groups demonstrated similar outcome scores with favorable overall results.
Our results suggest that both shaped and round implants might provide favorable breast reconstruction outcomes with similarly low complication rates and aesthetic results.
假体乳房重建术越来越受欢迎，目前有多种植入物可供选择。因此，评估新型成形植入物与传统圆形植入物的安全性和有效性非常重要。迄今为止，很少有研究调查过成形与圆形植入物在乳房重建中的结果。
本研究旨在通过荟萃分析方法全面比较成形和圆形乳房植入物重建在并发症谱和美学满意度方面的情况。
通过 PubMed/MEDLINE、Ovid 和 Cochrane 数据库检索，以确定呈现成形和圆形植入物组并发症发生率的相关研究。计算了两组之间以下并发症的相对风险：感染、血清肿、包膜挛缩、破裂、波纹、重建失败以及植入物置换或取出。美学满意度的结果包括美学结果和患者报告的结果。
对 8 项回顾性队列研究进行了荟萃分析，共涉及 2490 例基于植入物的乳房重建病例。两组之间的感染、血清肿、包膜挛缩和重建失败的风险无显著差异。成形植入物可显著降低植入物破裂和波纹的风险。在成形/纹理和圆形/光滑植入物的亚组分析中，前者的感染风险显著增加，而其他并发症（包括包膜挛缩和重建失败）的发生率相似。两组的美学满意度分析表明，两组的结果评分相似，整体结果良好。
我们的结果表明，成形和圆形植入物都可能提供良好的乳房重建结果，且并发症发生率和美学效果相似。
