Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 May 16;2016(5):CD010895.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010895.pub2.

Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

Nicola Rocco  1 , Corrado Rispoli, Lorenzo Moja, Bruno Amato, Loredana Iannone, Serena Testa, Andrea Spano, Giuseppe Catanuto, Antonello Accurso, Maurizio B Nava
Affiliations

Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

Nicola Rocco et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, and is a leading cause of cancer death among women. Prophylactic or curative mastectomy is often followed by breast reconstruction for which there are several surgical approaches that use breast implants with which surgeons can restore the natural feel, size and shape of the breast.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different types of breast implants on capsular contracture, surgical short- and long-term complications, postoperative satisfaction level and quality of life in women who have undergone reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register on 20 July 2015, MEDLINE (1985 to 20 July 2015), EMBASE (1985 to 20 July 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2015.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared different types of breast implants for reconstructive surgery. We considered the following types of intervention: implant envelope surfaces - texturised versus smooth; implant filler material - silicone versus saline, PVP-Hydrogel versus saline; implant shape - anatomical versus round; implant volume - variable versus fixed; brands - different implant manufacturing companies and implant generation (fifth versus previous generations).

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Main results: Five RCTs with 202 participants met the inclusion criteria. The women participants were typically in their 50s, and the majority of them (about 82%) received reconstructive surgery following breast cancer, while the others had reconstructive surgery after prophylactic mastectomy. The studies were heterogenous in terms of implant comparisons, which prevented us from pooling the data.The studies were judged as being at an unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias items owing to poor quality of reporting in the trial publications. Three of the five RCTs were judged to be at high risk of attrition bias, and one at high risk of detection bias.Textured silicone versus smooth silicone implants: textured implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to smooth implants (capsular contracture: risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Silicone versus saline implants: saline-filled implants performed better than silicone-filled implants for some outcomes; specifically, they produced less severe capsular contracture (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 8.51; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence) and increased patient satisfaction (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1 study, 58 participants; very low quality evidence). However reintervention was significantly more frequent in the saline-filled implant group than in the silicone-filled group (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.43; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence).Poly(N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) hydrogel-filled (PVP-hydrogel) versus saline-filled implants: PVP-hydrogel-filled implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to saline-filled implants (capsular contracture: RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.83 to 14.83; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.21 to 21.39; 1 study, 41 participants; very low quality evidence).Anatomical versus round implants: anatomical implants were associated with worse outcomes than round implants (capsular contracture: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.15; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.58; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.43; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Variable-volume versus fixed-volume implants: data about one-stage reconstruction using variable-volume implants were compared with data about fixed-volume implants positioned during the second surgical procedure of two-stage reconstructions. Fixed-volume implant reconstructions were possibly associated with a greater number of women reporting that their reconstruction corresponded with expected results (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) and fewer reinterventions (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.82 to 26.89; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) when compared to variable-volume implants. A higher patient satisfaction level (rated from 1 to 6, with 1 being very bad and 6 being very good) was found with the fixed-volume implants for overall aesthetic result (mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.61; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence).There were no studies that examined the effects of recent (fifth) generation silicone implants versus previous generations or different implant manufacturing companies.

Authors' conclusions: Despite the central role of breast reconstruction in women with breast cancer, the best implants to use in reconstructive surgery have been studied rarely in the context of RCTs. Furthermore the quality of these studies and the overall evidence they provide is largely unsatisfactory. Some of our results can be interpreted as early evidence of potentially large differences between different surgical approaches, which should be confirmed in new high-quality RCTs that include a larger number of women. These days - even after a few million women have had breasts reconstructed - surgeons cannot inform women about the risks and complications of different implant-based breast reconstructive options on the basis of results derived from RCTs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

N Rocco: none known

C Rispoli: none known

L Moja: none known

B Amato: none known

L Iannone: none known

S Testa: none known

A Spano: none known

G Catanuto: none known

A Accurso: none known

MB Nava: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Capsular contracture, Outcome 1 Textured vs smooth implants.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Capsular contracture, Outcome 2 Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Capsular contracture, Outcome 3 PVP‐hydrogel‐filled vs saline‐filled implants.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Capsular contracture, Outcome 4 Anatomical vs round implants.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Patient satisfaction, Outcome 1 Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants: patient satisfaction for consistency.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Patient satisfaction, Outcome 2 Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants: size decrease.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Patient satisfaction, Outcome 3 Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants: patient satisfaction, aesthetic results.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Patient satisfaction, Outcome 4 Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants: patient satisfaction, correspondence to expectations.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Patient satisfaction, Outcome 5 Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants: patient satisfaction, recommending to others.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Short‐term complications, Outcome 1 PVP‐hydrogel‐filled vs saline‐filled implants.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Short‐term complications, Outcome 2 Anatomical vs round implants.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Reintervention, Outcome 1 Textured vs smooth implants.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Reintervention, Outcome 2 Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Reintervention, Outcome 3 Anatomical vs round implants.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Reintervention, Outcome 4 Variable‐volume vs fixed‐volume implants.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Cosmetic outcomes not reported by participants, Outcome 1 Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants: cosmetic outcomes according to expert panel.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Cosmetic outcomes not reported by participants, Outcome 2 Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants: cosmetic outcomes according to lay panel.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010895

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Benediktsson 2000 {published data only}
    1. Benediktsson K, Perbeck LG. Fluid retention in Bioplasty Misti Gold II breast prostheses with development of capsular contracture. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 2000;34(1):65‐70. - PubMed
Eriksen 2012 {published data only}
    1. Eriksen C, Lindgren EN, Frisell J, Stark B. A prospective randomized study comparing two different expander approaches in implant‐based breast reconstruction: one stage versus two stages. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012;130(2):254‐64e. - PubMed
Gahm 2010 {published data only}
    1. Gahm J, Edsander‐Nord A, Jurell G, Wickman M. No differences in aesthetic outcome or patient satisfaction between anatomically shaped and round expandable implants in bilateral breast reconstructions: a randomized study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2010;126(5):1419‐27. - PubMed
Gylbert 1990 {published data only}
    1. Asplund O. Capsular contracture in silicone gel and saline‐filled breast implants after reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1984;73(2):70‐5. - PubMed
    1. Gylbert L, Asplund O, Jurell G. Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with silicone‐gel and saline‐filled implants: a 6‐year follow‐up. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1990;85(3):373‐7. - PubMed
Thuesen 1995 {published data only}
    1. Thuesen B, Siim E, Christensen L, Schroder M. Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with the tissue expansion technique. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 1995;29(1):9‐13. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Benediktsson 2006 {published data only}
    1. Benediktsson K, Perbeck L. Capsular contracture around saline‐filled and textured subcutaneously‐placed implants in irradiated and non‐irradiated breast cancer patients: five years of monitoring of a prospective trial. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 2006;59(1):27‐34. - PubMed
Hammerstad 1996 {published data only}
    1. Hammerstad M, Dahl BH, Rindal R, Kveim MR, Roald HE. Quality of the capsule in reconstructions with textured or smooth silicone implants after mastectomy. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 1996;30(1):33‐6. - PubMed
Macadam 2010 {published data only}
    1. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Cook EF Jr, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient satisfaction and health‐related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient‐reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2010;125(3):761‐71. - PubMed
Macadam 2013 {published data only}
    1. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient‐reported satisfaction and health‐related quality of life following breast reconstruction: a comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2013;131(3):431‐41. - PubMed

Additional references

Accurso 2008
    1. Accurso A, Rocco N, Feleppa C, Palumbo A, D'Andrea F. Spread of silicone to axillary lymph nodes after high cohesive gel silicone implant rupture. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2008;122(6):221‐2e. - PubMed
Ahmed 2013
    1. Ahmed Ali U, Sluis PC, Issa Y, Habaga IA, Gooszen HG, Flum DR, et al. Trends in worldwide volume and methodological quality of surgical randomised controlled trials. Annals of Surgery 2013;258(2):199‐2017. - PubMed
American Cancer Society 2014
    1. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2013‐2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc 2014.
ASPS 2014
    1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014 Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Statistics. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news‐resources/statistics/2014‐s... 2014 (accessed 4 August 2015).
Baker 1978
    1. Baker J. Augmentation mammaplasty. Symposium on Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast: Proceedings of the Symposium of the Educational Foundation of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; 1975 November 23‐26; Scottsdale, AZ. 1978:256‐63.
Barnsley 2006
    1. Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LF, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;117:2182‐90. - PubMed
Blocksma 1965
    1. Blocksma R, Braley S. The silicones in plastic surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1965;33:366‐70. - PubMed
Boyle 2005
    1. Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe, 2004. Annals of Oncology 2005;16(3):481‐8. - PubMed
BREAST‐Q
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PJ, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST‐Q. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124(2):345‐53. - PubMed
Campbell 2000
    1. Campbell M, Grimshaw J, Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2000;5:12‐6. - PubMed
Champaneria 2012
    1. Champaneria MC, Wong WW, Hill ME, Gupta SC. The evolution of breast reconstruction: a historical perspective. World Journal of Surgery 2012;36(4):730‐42. - PubMed
Chao 2016
    1. Chao AH, Garza R III, Povoski SP. A review of the use of silicone implants in breast surgery. Expert Review of Medical Devices 2016;13(2):143‐56. [DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1134310] - PubMed
Chen 2010
    1. Chen C, Cano S, Klassen A, King T, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient‐reported outcome measures. The Breast Journal 2010;16(6):587‐97. - PubMed
CONSORT 2010
    1. Schultz KF, Altaman D, Moher D, for the CONSORT group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;152(11):726‐32. - PubMed
Cordeiro 2008
    1. Cordeiro PG. Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2008;359(15):1590‐601. - PubMed
D'Souza 2011
    1. D'Souza N, Darmanin G, Fedorowicz Z. Immediate versus delayed reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7. - PMC - PubMed
De Angelis 2009
    1. Angelis R, Tavilla A, Verdecchia A, Scoppa S, Hachey M, Feuer EJ, et al. Breast cancer survivors in the United States: geographic variability and time trends, 2005‐2015. Cancer 2009;115(9):1954‐66. - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177‐88. - PubMed
Djohan 2008
    1. Djohan R, Gage E, Bernard S. Breast reconstruction options following mastectomy. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2008;75(Suppl 1):S17‐23. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
EORTC QLQC30 (Br23)
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ‐C30: a quality‐of‐life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1993;85(5):365‐76. - PubMed
EU 2012
    1. European Commission Heath Programme 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/policy/index_en.htm (accessed 1 December 2013).
EUSOMA 2012
    1. Breast unit guidelines. http://www.eusoma.org (accessed 1 December 2013).
FDA
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Post‐approval studies. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma_pas.cfm (accessed 8 May 2015).
GRADEproGDT
    1. GRADEproGDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc). Available from www.gradepro.org.
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. BMJ 2008;336:924‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Gylbert 1989
    1. Gylbert LOA, Jurell G, Olenius M. Results of subglandular breast augmentation using a new classification method: 18‐year follow‐up. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery 1989;23:133‐6. - PubMed
Gøtzsche 2013
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hammond 2012
    1. Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA. Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012;129(6):1381‐91. - PubMed
Handel 2006
    1. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA. A long‐term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;117:757‐67; discussion 768‐72. - PubMed
Henriksen 2003
    1. Henriksen TF, Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Friis S, McLaughlin JK, Høyer AP, et al. Incidence and severity of short‐term complications after breast augmentation: results from a nationwide breast implant registry. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2003;51(6):531‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Higgins 2011c
    1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.
Ho 2012
    1. Ho G, Nguyen TJ, Shahabi A, Hwang BH, Chan LS, Wong AK. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of complications associated with acellular dermal matrix‐assisted breast reconstruction. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2012;68(4):346‐56. - PubMed
Hortobagyi 2005
    1. Hortobagyi GN, Garza Salazar J, Pritchard K, Amadori D, Haidinger R, Hudis CA, et al. The global breast cancer burden: variations in epidemiology and survival. Clinical Breast Cancer 2005;6(5):391‐401. - PubMed
Jewell 2012
    1. Jewell ML. Silicone gel breast implants at 50: the state of the science. Aesthetic Surgery 2012;32(8):1031‐4. - PubMed
Jonsson 2007
    1. Jonsson H, Bordas P, Wallin H, Nystrom L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality ‐ an update. Journal of Medical Screening 2007;14(2):87‐93. - PubMed
Kronowitz 2009
    1. Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124(2):395‐408. - PubMed
Lee 2009
    1. Lee C, Sunu C, Pignone M. Patient reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2009;209(1):123‐33. - PMC - PubMed
Macaskill 2001
    1. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001;20(4):641‐54. - PubMed
Marin‐Gutzke 2010
    1. Marin‐Gutzke M, Sanchez‐Olaso A. Reconstructive surgery in young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2010;123:67‐74. - PubMed
Maxwell 2012
    1. Maxwell GP, Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form‐stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2012;32(6):709‐17. - PubMed
McGuire 2009
    1. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, Meade T, Parbhoo J, Mathias M, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13‐years trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2009;16(10):2682‐90. - PubMed
Nahabedian 2009a
    1. Nahabedian MY. Breast reconstruction: a review and rationale for patient selection. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;124(1):55‐62. - PubMed
Nahabedian 2009b
    1. Nahabedian MY. Oncoplastic Surgery of the Breast. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Limited, 2009.
Nava 2011
    1. Nava MB, Pennati AE, Lozza L, Spano A, Zambetti M, Catanuto G. Outcome of different timings of radiotherapy in implant‐based breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2011;128(2):353‐8. - PubMed
Nelson 2012
    1. Nelson JA, Tchou J, Domchek S, Sonnad SS, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Breast reconstruction in bilateral prophylactic mastectomy patients: factors that influence decision making. Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Aesthetic Surgery 2012;65(11):1481‐9. - PubMed
Palmer 1992
    1. Palmer BV, Mannur KR, Ross WB. Subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate reconstruction as treatment for early breast cancer. British Journal of Surgery 1992;79(12):1309‐11. - PubMed
Potter 2011a
    1. Potter S, Brigic A, Whiting PF, Cawthorn SJ, Avery KN, Donovan JL, et al. Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011;103(1):31‐46. - PubMed
Potter 2011b
    1. Potter S, Harcourt D, Cawthorn S, Warr R, Mills N, Havercroft D, et al. Assessment of cosmesis after breast reconstruction surgery: a systematic review. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2011;18(3):813‐23. - PubMed
Potter 2014
    1. Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn SJ, Donovan J, Blazeby JM. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials 2014;15:80. - PMC - PubMed
Potter 2015
    1. Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM, on behalf of the BRAVO Steering Group. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2015;102(11):1360‐71. - PMC - PubMed
Querci della Rovere 2010
    1. Querci della Rovere G, Benson JR, Nava MB. Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Surgery of the Breast. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
SF‐36
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care 1994;32(1):40‐66. - PubMed
Siegel 2015
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2015;65(1):5‐29. - PubMed
Spear 1995
    1. Spear SL, Backer JL Jr. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1995;96(5):1119‐23. - PubMed
Spear 2007
    1. Spear Sl, Mesbahi AN. Implant‐based reconstruction. Clinics in Plastic Surgery 2007;34(1):63‐73. - PubMed
Thiruchelvam 2013
    1. Thiruchelvam PTR, McNeill F, Jallali N, Harris P, Hogben K. Post‐mastectomy breast reconstruction. BMJ 2013;347:f6810. - PubMed
Wong 2006
    1. Wong C H, Samuel M, Tan BK, Song C. Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006;118(5):1224‐36. - PubMed

Publication types