FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4290973602> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4290973602 endingPage "919e" @default.
• W4290973602 startingPage "917e" @default.
• W4290973602 abstract "We appreciate Dr. Swanson’s letter regarding our article, “Breast Augmentation with Microtextured Anatomical Implants in 653 Women: Indications and Risk of Rotation.”1 We agree with Dr. Swanson that breast augmentation with high-projection anatomical implants cannot replace the mastopexy procedure. It would be wrong to offer a breast augmentation without a mastopexy to patients with severe ptosis who wish a substantial lift of the nipple-areola complex. However, we do believe that breast augmentation with anatomical implants is a valuable alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in a subgroup of women with glandular ptosis and a low position of the nipple-areola complex. These patients can benefit from smaller scars, less extensive surgery without the risk of nipple necrosis,2,3 and a lower cost but at the expense of lowering the inframammary fold.4 We attribute the benefit of anatomical implants in this selected group of patients with a low position of the nipple-areola complex to the shorter arch from the lower pole of the implant to the point of maximum projection compared with round implants, which limits the lowering of the inframammary fold.5 Our study is limited by the retrospective design with the lack of a standardized measurement tool, but it is strengthened by the large sample size, and it provides the readers with data on the reoperation rate due to malrotation of the implant. Dr. Swanson correctly states that our discussion of the beneficial properties of anatomical implants is based on first principles. We thank Dr. Swanson for adding the horizontal line to Figure 3 from the original article, as we think it illustrates the elevation of the nipple very well. On the left preoperative photograph, the line tangent is on the nipples’ superior border, whereas the line tangent is on the nipples’ inferior border on the right postoperative photograph. More importantly, there is less slack and more “breast” below the level of the nipple even though this comes at the expense of lowering the inframammary fold. We hypothesize that this type of patient is better treated with anatomical implants than with round implants if the augmentation is not accompanied by a mastopexy. However, this hypothesis needs to be tested against a control group before a firmer conclusion can be made. Regarding the implant rotation rate, we used the rate of reoperation, which was free of charge for the patients. We did not use diagnostic imaging to detect implant rotation because of the retrospective design of our study. We found an approximately 3 percent rotation rate requiring reoperation for microtextured implants, which is comparable to the incidence reported in the literature for macrotextured implants.1,6–8 As Dr. Swanson points out, this rate is almost certainly an underestimation as some patients might not detect a malrotation or may not want to go through revisional surgery even though this is free of charge. Sieber et al.9 reported a rotation rate of 42 percent when using high-resolution ultrasound but only 5 percent were clinically detectable. This vast difference between the imaging and the clinically observable malrotation makes it arguably more clinically relevant for both surgeons and patients to use the rate of clinically observable malrotation or the reoperation rate, when considering anatomical implants. We agree with Dr. Swanson that since the submission of our manuscript there have been more reported cases of breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and the link to macrotextured implants is stronger.10 However, the current risk estimates are still very uncertain due to the low number of cases and the poorly reported medical history of each case.11 In our experience, patients are tolerant to the low risk of breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with Siltex (Mentor, Irvine, Calif.) texturization, and most of the patients in our clinic prefer round Siltex implants over round smooth implants. In conclusion, we agree with Dr. Swanson that, as we mentioned in the Discussion section of our article, breast augmentation with high-profile anatomical implants cannot replace augmentation-mastopexy. We agree that women who emphasize lifting the nipple should be offered an augmentation-mastopexy. However, we suggest breast augmentation with high-projection anatomical implants is a valuable alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in a selected group of women with glandular ptosis who prefer a lowering of the inframammary fold over the scars that accompany a mastopexy. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest in any of the products or devices mentioned in this communication. Tim K. Weltz, B.M.Sc.Andreas Larsen, M.D.Mathilde N. Hemmingsen, M.D.Mathias Ørholt, M.D.Louise E. Rasmussen, B.M.Sc.Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns TreatmentCopenhagen University HospitalRigshospitalet Peter S. Andersen, M.D.Faye Sarmady, M.D.Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns TreatmentCopenhagen University HospitalRigshospitaletAmalieklinikken Jens J. Elberg, M.D.Amalieklinikken Peter V. Vester-Glowinski, M.D., Ph.D.Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns TreatmentCopenhagen University HospitalRigshospitalet Mikkel Herly, M.D.Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns TreatmentCopenhagen University Hospital RigshospitaletDepartment of Immunology and MicrobiologyFaculty of Health SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen, Denmark" @default.
• W4290973602 created "2022-08-13" @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5003588093 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5020546141 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5032649858 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5033686023 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5034872575 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5057081242 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5067270277 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5074887182 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5077494290 @default.
• W4290973602 creator A5079449559 @default.
• W4290973602 date "2022-08-11" @default.
• W4290973602 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4290973602 title "Reply: Breast Augmentation with Microtextured Anatomical Implants in 653 Women: Indications and Risk of Rotation" @default.
• W4290973602 cites W1759788859 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2144508047 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2586622838 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2589982091 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2617297553 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2744157076 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W2916691134 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W3095916215 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W3162369691 @default.
• W4290973602 cites W4235678975 @default.
• W4290973602 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000009527" @default.
• W4290973602 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35951039" @default.
• W4290973602 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4290973602 type Work @default.
• W4290973602 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4290973602 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5003588093 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5020546141 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5032649858 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5033686023 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5034872575 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5057081242 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5067270277 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5074887182 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5077494290 @default.
• W4290973602 hasAuthorship W4290973602A5079449559 @default.
• W4290973602 hasBestOaLocation W42909736021 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C165383583 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2776964564 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2778187792 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2779238821 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2780440149 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2781194658 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C141071460 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C165383583 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2776964564 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2778187792 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2779238821 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2780440149 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2781194658 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C2781411149 @default.
• W4290973602 hasConceptScore W4290973602C71924100 @default.
• W4290973602 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4290973602 hasLocation W42909736021 @default.
• W4290973602 hasLocation W42909736022 @default.
• W4290973602 hasLocation W42909736023 @default.
• W4290973602 hasOpenAccess W4290973602 @default.
• W4290973602 hasPrimaryLocation W42909736021 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W1998959113 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W2007563682 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W2018991819 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W2051142050 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W2332885818 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W271581943 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W3116847628 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W4292641365 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W4321493395 @default.
• W4290973602 hasRelatedWork W4387578220 @default.
• W4290973602 hasVolume "150" @default.
• W4290973602 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4290973602 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4290973602 workType "article" @default.