FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3140957055> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3140957055 endingPage "631e" @default.
• W3140957055 startingPage "630e" @default.
• W3140957055 abstract "Sir: In their recent article, Rubi et al. claim that a group of experts were unable to differentiate between round and anatomical implants.1 The group consisted of 15 plastic surgeons and 15 nurses. No information is given on the relative expertise of the plastic surgeons, nor is there any statement with regard to the knowledge of the nurses on this subject. Surgeons with no or minimal expertise in a specific type of implant might not be familiar with the postoperative appearance of that implant. Similarly, although experienced nurses can reliably assess breast aesthetics, without specific training on the expected appearance of round versus anatomical implants, their ability to differentiate cannot be assumed to be that of an expert. French philosopher Henri Bergson’s quote “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend” is quite relevant. It is unwarranted to claim that “experts” are unable to differentiate between the two implants, if the expertise of half of the evaluators is unspecified and half of the evaluators are not experts. The evaluators were not shown the profile view. In fact, this is the single most important view, if the goal is to assess the effect of an implant on the breast contour. On close observation of postoperative photographs of the patient shown in Figure 1, an expert can easily detect the slight concavity on the upper edge of the round implant in the profile view. This is not as obvious in the oblique view. The authors explain that plastic surgeons were statistically better in differentiating the implants, because of their assessment of the preoperative photograph. This would be true only if the operating surgeon had selected the implant type. However, in this study, the patient made the decision, and a patient best served with an anatomical implant might have well chosen a round implant and vice versa. The 5.2 and 14 percent rotation rates, presented as data that should deter use of anatomical implants, are not entirely applicable to this study. The two studies referred to involved subglandular placement and anatomically shaped saline implants, respectively.2,3 The rotation rates for submuscular anatomical implants can be as low as 0.42 to 1.1 percent.4,5 Finally, no information is provided on the breast and chest wall anatomy of the patients, or on the implant heights of the anatomical implants included in the study. In patients with good preoperative upper pole cover, the upper pole appearance may appear natural and anatomical even with round implants.4 Anatomical implants with low versus medium versus tall height vary considerably in their dissimilarity with round implants. Thus, the study by Rubi et al. is a simplified way of looking at the difference between round and anatomical implants. Patient anatomy and implant variables not accounted for in the study can influence the appearance of the breast after augmentation and can obscure the difference between these implants. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the present study is that under certain and limited conditions the difference between round and anatomical implants is not apparent; this is knowledge that we had before the publication of this study. DISCLOSURE Dr. Hedén is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, Calif.) and an unpaid consultant for Canfield Scientific (Fairfield, N.J.). Dr. Agko has no financial interests to disclose. No funding was received to assist in the creation of this communication. Mouchammed Agko, M.D.Department of Plastic SurgeryChina Medical University HospitalTaichung, Taiwan Per Hedén, M.D., Ph.D.AkademiklinikenStockholm, Sweden" @default.
• W3140957055 created "2021-04-13" @default.
• W3140957055 creator A5023358344 @default.
• W3140957055 creator A5069393217 @default.
• W3140957055 date "2017-10-01" @default.
• W3140957055 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3140957055 title "Comparing Round and Anatomically Shaped Implants in Augmentation Mammaplasty" @default.
• W3140957055 cites W1971469282 @default.
• W3140957055 cites W2326091359 @default.
• W3140957055 cites W2331106325 @default.
• W3140957055 cites W2563699572 @default.
• W3140957055 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003721" @default.
• W3140957055 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28632637" @default.
• W3140957055 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W3140957055 type Work @default.
• W3140957055 sameAs 3140957055 @default.
• W3140957055 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3140957055 countsByYear W31409570552020 @default.
• W3140957055 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3140957055 hasAuthorship W3140957055A5023358344 @default.
• W3140957055 hasAuthorship W3140957055A5069393217 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C160697094 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2777026412 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2778187792 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2780440149 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2781037480 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C111472728 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C138885662 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C141071460 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C160697094 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C161191863 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2777026412 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2777855551 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2778187792 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2780440149 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2781037480 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C2781411149 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C41008148 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C41895202 @default.
• W3140957055 hasConceptScore W3140957055C71924100 @default.
• W3140957055 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3140957055 hasLocation W31409570551 @default.
• W3140957055 hasOpenAccess W3140957055 @default.
• W3140957055 hasPrimaryLocation W31409570551 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2024362652 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2033404446 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2054638990 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2063790959 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2068493548 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2147739298 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2811122766 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2926815287 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W2988691827 @default.
• W3140957055 hasRelatedWork W4240009922 @default.
• W3140957055 hasVolume "140" @default.
• W3140957055 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3140957055 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3140957055 magId "3140957055" @default.
• W3140957055 workType "article" @default.