TY - JOUR
T1 - Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type
AU - Namnoum, James D.
AU - Largent, Joan
AU - Kaplan, Hilton M.
AU - Oefelein, Michael G.
AU - Brown, Mitchell H.
PY - 2013/9
Y1 - 2013/9
N2 - Background Clinical evidence concerning the potential risks and benefits associated with surgical incision, anatomical pocket and implant device type in primary breast augmentation is lacking. Objectives This study assesses relative risk (RR) of adverse events stratified by surgical incision, anatomical pocket and breast implant device in primary augmentation patients enrolled in Core (NCT00689871, round/silicone devices) and 410 (NCT00690339, anatomically shaped/highly cohesive silicone devices) long-term clinical trials. Methods RR for time-to-first-event of Baker grade 3-4 capsular contracture (CC), moderate-severe malposition, and secondary procedure were calculated using multivariate time-to-event regression analysis. Results Risk of CC was increased with periareolar (unadjusted model only) and with axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision. Risk of CC was significantly reduced with subpectoral versus subglandular placement (adjusted model), and with textured surface/round/silicone-filled devices and textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices versus smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Risk of CC was significantly reduced with textured surface devices independent of subpectoral or subglandular placement (adjusted model). In a number-needed-to-treat analysis, 7-9 patients needed to be treated with a textured surface device to prevent one Baker grade 3-4 CC over 10 years. Risk of moderate-severe malposition was significantly increased with periareolar (adjusted model) and axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision; and significantly lower with textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices than with smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Risk of secondary procedures was significantly increased with periareolar (adjusted model) and axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision; and significantly reduced with textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices versus smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Conclusions In primary breast augmentation, surgical incision, anatomical pocket, and device were significant predictors of clinical outcomes: capsular contracture, malposition and secondary procedure.
AB - Background Clinical evidence concerning the potential risks and benefits associated with surgical incision, anatomical pocket and implant device type in primary breast augmentation is lacking. Objectives This study assesses relative risk (RR) of adverse events stratified by surgical incision, anatomical pocket and breast implant device in primary augmentation patients enrolled in Core (NCT00689871, round/silicone devices) and 410 (NCT00690339, anatomically shaped/highly cohesive silicone devices) long-term clinical trials. Methods RR for time-to-first-event of Baker grade 3-4 capsular contracture (CC), moderate-severe malposition, and secondary procedure were calculated using multivariate time-to-event regression analysis. Results Risk of CC was increased with periareolar (unadjusted model only) and with axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision. Risk of CC was significantly reduced with subpectoral versus subglandular placement (adjusted model), and with textured surface/round/silicone-filled devices and textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices versus smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Risk of CC was significantly reduced with textured surface devices independent of subpectoral or subglandular placement (adjusted model). In a number-needed-to-treat analysis, 7-9 patients needed to be treated with a textured surface device to prevent one Baker grade 3-4 CC over 10 years. Risk of moderate-severe malposition was significantly increased with periareolar (adjusted model) and axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision; and significantly lower with textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices than with smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Risk of secondary procedures was significantly increased with periareolar (adjusted model) and axillary (adjusted model) versus inframammary incision; and significantly reduced with textured surface/shaped/highly cohesive silicone-filled devices versus smooth surface/round/silicone-filled devices (adjusted model). Conclusions In primary breast augmentation, surgical incision, anatomical pocket, and device were significant predictors of clinical outcomes: capsular contracture, malposition and secondary procedure.
KW - Anatomical pocket
KW - Capsular contracture
KW - Implant device
KW - Malposition
KW - Secondary procedure
KW - Surgical incision
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880919684&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880919684&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.04.046
DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.04.046
M3 - Review article
C2 - 23664574
AN - SCOPUS:84880919684
SN - 1748-6815
VL - 66
SP - 1165
EP - 1172
JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
IS - 9
ER -