Cochrane · systematic review · CD010895
Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Rocco, N, Rispoli, C, Moja, L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
Breast CancerAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 13 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Textured versus smooth implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Population: women having reconstructive breast surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Capsular contracture Number of women with capsular contracture Textured vs smooth implants | RR 0.82 [0.14, 4.71] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reintervention Number of women with reinterventions Textured vs smooth implants | RR 0.82 [0.14, 4.71] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Silicone‐filled versus saline‐filled implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Population: women having reconstructive breast surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Capsular contracture Number of women with capsular contracture Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants | RR 3.25 [1.24, 8.51] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Patient satisfaction for consistency Number of women satisfied Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants | RR 0.6 [0.41, 0.88] | 1 study · 58 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reintervention Number of women with reintervention Silicone‐filled vs saline‐filled implants | OR 0.08 [0.01, 0.43] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
PVP‐hydrogel‐filled versus saline‐filled implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Population: women having reconstructive breast surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Capsular contracture Number of women with capsular contracture PVP‐hydrogel‐filled vs saline‐filled implants | RR 3.5 [0.83, 14.83] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Short‐term complications Number of women with at least one short‐term complication PVP‐hydrogel‐filled vs saline‐filled implants | RR 2.1 [0.21, 21.39] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Anatomical versus round implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Population: women having reconstructive breast surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Capsular contracture Number of women with capsular contracture Anatomical vs round implants | RR 2 [0.2, 20.15] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Short‐term complications Number of women with at least one short‐term complication Anatomical vs round implants | RR 2 [0.42, 9.58] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reintervention Number of women with reintervention Anatomical vs round implants | RR 1.5 [0.51, 4.43] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Variable‐ versus fixed‐volume implants for reconstructive breast surgery
Population: women having reconstructive breast surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Patient satisfaction: correspondence to expectations Number of women reporting correspondence with expectation Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants | RR 0.25 [0.1, 0.62] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Patient satisfaction: aesthetic results Rating scale from 1 to 6 (1 being very bad and 6 being very good) Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Reintervention Number of women with re intervention Variable‐ vs fixed‐volume implants | RR 7 [1.82, 26.89] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |