Comparative clinical evaluation of breast augmentation using silicone foam coated implants and textured implants

Acta Cir Bras. 2020 Jun 5;35(4):e202000407. doi: 10.1590/s0102-865020200040000007. eCollection 2020.

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.

Publication types

  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Breast / drug effects
  • Breast Implantation / adverse effects
  • Breast Implantation / methods*
  • Breast Implants* / adverse effects
  • Female
  • Foreign-Body Reaction / pathology
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Prospective Studies
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Risk Factors
  • Silicone Elastomers / therapeutic use*
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Young Adult

Substances

  • Silicone Elastomers