Comparative Analysis of Saline and Silicone Gel Implants in Subpectoral Breast Augmentation: A Prospective Study
Authors/Creators
- 1. M.B.B.S., M.Ch. Plastic Surgery, Senior Resident, Department of General Surgery, S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
- 2. M.B.B.S., M.Ch. Plastic Surgery, Senior Resident, Department of Plastic Surgery, Sri Krishn Medical College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
- 3. M.B.B.S., M.S. General Surgery, Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
- 4. M.B.B.S., M.S. General Surgery, Professor & H.O.D., Department of General Surgery, S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
- 5. M.B.B.S., M.S General Surgery, M.Ch. Plastic Surgery, Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, P.M.C.H., Patna, Bihar, India
Description
Background: Breast augmentation is a popular cosmetic procedure with a critical choice between saline and silicone gel implants, each offering distinct advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed to provide objective data comparing these two implant types, shedding light on their complications, patient satisfaction, and aesthetic outcomes. Methods: Over a 1-year period, 120 women underwent primary cosmetic breast augmentation, with data collected through clinical evaluations, surveys, and ultrasound scans. Complication rates, implant characteristics, patient satisfaction, and factors influencing rippling and folds were assessed. Results: The study found no significant differences in complication rates between saline and silicone gel implants. Patient satisfaction remained high regardless of implant type. Rippling and folds were associated with lower body mass index and smaller implant volumes, with no significant variation between implant types. Conclusion: Saline and silicone gel implants are both viable options for breast augmentation, offering comparable complication rates and patient satisfaction. Individualized decision-making, considering factors like cost and rupture detection, is essential. Implant type did not significantly affect patient satisfaction, and rippling and folds are influenced by other factors. Recommendations: Patients should consult board-certified plastic surgeons to make informed decisions based on their body type, aesthetic goals, and personal preferences. Surgeons should consider factors beyond implant type when discussing potential complications and satisfaction with patients.
Abstract (English)
Background: Breast augmentation is a popular cosmetic procedure with a critical choice between saline and silicone gel implants, each offering distinct advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed to provide objective data comparing these two implant types, shedding light on their complications, patient satisfaction, and aesthetic outcomes. Methods: Over a 1-year period, 120 women underwent primary cosmetic breast augmentation, with data collected through clinical evaluations, surveys, and ultrasound scans. Complication rates, implant characteristics, patient satisfaction, and factors influencing rippling and folds were assessed. Results: The study found no significant differences in complication rates between saline and silicone gel implants. Patient satisfaction remained high regardless of implant type. Rippling and folds were associated with lower body mass index and smaller implant volumes, with no significant variation between implant types. Conclusion: Saline and silicone gel implants are both viable options for breast augmentation, offering comparable complication rates and patient satisfaction. Individualized decision-making, considering factors like cost and rupture detection, is essential. Implant type did not significantly affect patient satisfaction, and rippling and folds are influenced by other factors. Recommendations: Patients should consult board-certified plastic surgeons to make informed decisions based on their body type, aesthetic goals, and personal preferences. Surgeons should consider factors beyond implant type when discussing potential complications and satisfaction with patients.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue12,Article315.pdf
Files
(304.0 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:54606ae0623a4bb75f8e5d7838db6a6c
|
304.0 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-12-26
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue12,Article315.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Adams Jr WP, Mallucci P. Breast augmentation. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2012 Oct 1;130(4):597e-611e. 2. Spear SL, Jespersen MR. Breast implants: saline or silicone? Aesthetic surgery journal. 2010 Jul 1;30(4):557-70. 3. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Breast augmentation. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2014 Apr 1;133(4):567e-83e. 4. Schaub TA, Ahmad J, Rohrich RJ. Capsular contracture with breast implants in the cosmetic patient: saline versus silicone–a systematic review of the literature. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2010 Dec 1;126(6):2140-9. 5. Heidekrueger PI, Sinno S, Hidalgo DA, Colombo M, Broer PN. Current trends in breast augmentation: an international analysis. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2018 Jan 17;38(2):133- 48. 6. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Breast augmentation. PlastReconstr Surg. 2014; 133:567e–583e. 7. Chang EI, Hammond DC. Clinical results on innovation in breast implant design. PlastReconstr Surg. 2018;142(4S The Science of Breast Implants):31S–38S. 8. Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q, et al. The fate of breast implants: a critical analysis of complications and outcomes. PlastReconstr Surg. 1995; 96:1521–1533. 9. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, et al. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. PlastReconstr Surg. 2006; 117:757–767; discussion 768. 10. Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. PlastReconstr Surg. 2015; 135:695–705. 11. Nahabedian MY. Round form-stable breast implants: diagnosis and management of complications. PlastReconstr Surg. 2019; 144:73S– 81S. 12. Mohebali K, Wixtrom RN. Breast implant engineering and performance. PlastReconstr Surg. 2018;142(4S The Science of Breast Implants):6S–11S. 13. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, et al. A 15- year experience with primary breast augmentation. PlastReconstr Surg. 2011; 127:1300– 1310. 14. Swanson E. Breast augmentation. In: Evidence-based Cosmetic Breast Surgery. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017:33–74. 15. Rohrich RJ, Reece EM. Breast augmentation today: saline versus silicone—what are the facts? PlastReconstr Surg. 2008; 121:669–672. 16. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, et al. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. PlastReconstr Surg. 2003; 111:469–480; discussion 481.