...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery: JPRAS >Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses.
【24h】

Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses.

机译:软粘性硅胶假体:美学结果与较低粘性硅胶假体的比较前瞻性研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The flexibility of lower cohesivity silicone prostheses is the main reason for wrinkling, rippling and evidence of implant edges. The soft cohesive silicone implants promise to minimize such effects with minimal softness reduction. Forty consecutive patients received soft cohesive prostheses (INAMED Style 110 ST) and were studied prospectively. A historical group, made up by the 40 consecutive patients who received lower cohesivity silicone implants (INAMED Style 110) in the immediately preceding months, was used as a control. Wrinkling, prosthetic edge perceptibility and capsular contracture degree were assessed six months after surgery. The tissue coverage thickness was measured using ultrasonography. The patients were then asked to evaluate the breast softness by means of an anonymous questionnaire, where they also expressed their overall satisfaction by means of the five-steps linear analogical scales. The wrinkling prevalence was 9.2% in the soft cohesive group vs. 55% in the lower cohesivity one (p<0.01). The edge perceptibility was 14% in the soft cohesive group vs. 22% in the lower cohesivity one (no statistical significance). The coverage tissue thickness was not found to be significantly related to the wrinkling prevalence or to the edge perceptibility. The capsular contracture rate was almost identical in the two groups (Baker II: 2.6% vs. 2.7%, no Baker III or IV). A higher stiffness was noted in the soft cohesive group (average score: 4.2 vs. 4.4 in the control group, p<0.05), but the overall satisfaction degree was higher for soft cohesive implants (average score: 4.5 vs. 3.8, p<0.01). The soft cohesive prostheses offered better overall results than the lower cohesivity silicone prostheses, even if a longer term follow-up should be advised. The soft cohesive prostheses showed a higher firmness, but this seemed not to have any influence on the overall satisfaction degree.
机译:较低粘性的有机硅假体的柔韧性是起皱,起波纹和植入物边缘证据的主要原因。柔软的有机硅植入物有望以最小的柔软度降低将此类影响降至最低。连续40例患者接受了软粘性假体(INAMED 110 ST型),并进行了前瞻性研究。一组由前40例在前几个月接受低内聚硅氧烷植入物(INAMED 110型)的连续患者组成的一个历史小组用作对照。术后六个月评估皱纹,假体边缘可感知性和包膜挛缩度。使用超声波检查法测量组织覆盖厚度。然后要求患者通过匿名调查表评估乳房柔软度,并通过五步线性类比量表表达对总体满意度。软粘性组的皱纹患病率为9.2%,而低粘性组的皱纹患病率为55%(p <0.01)。柔软内聚组的边缘可感知性为14%,而较低内聚性的边缘可感知性为22%(无统计学意义)。没有发现覆盖组织的厚度与皱纹发生率或边缘可感知性显着相关。两组的囊挛缩率几乎相同(Baker II:2.6%vs. 2.7%,没有Baker III或IV)。软粘合组的刚度较高(平均得分:对照组4.2和4.4,p <0.05),但软粘合植入物的总体满意度较高(平均得分:4.5 vs. 3.8,p < 0.01)。即使应建议长期随访,柔软的内聚假体也比较低内聚性的有机硅假体提供更好的整体效果。柔软而有粘性的假体显示出较高的硬度,但这似乎对整体满意度没有任何影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号