Evaluation of the Oncologic Outcomes of Breast Cancer According to the Smooth Implants Versus Textured Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and aim: Concerns about the potential carcinogenic effects of breast implants, particularly those with textured surfaces, have recently been raised by an increasing number of reports of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implants. The present study was conducted to evaluate oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the smooth implants vs. textured implants.Material and methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis study, international databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until July 2024 using keywords relevant to the study objectives. Cohort studies published in English that investigated the oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the surface type of implants were included in the study. STATA/MP. v17 software was used to analyze data.Results: Six studies were reviewed. The use of a textured implant vs smooth implant was associated with a significantly lower DFS (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.71-4.04) vs (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.57-4.35), (p<0.01).Conclusions: According to the results of the present meta-analysis, breast cancer recurrence may be related to the type of surface implant used for reconstruction.

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.30485/ijsrdms.2024.482209.1607
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of the Oncologic Outcomes of Breast Cancer According to the Smooth Implants Versus Textured Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

Evaluation of the Oncologic Outcomes of Breast Cancer According to the Smooth Implants Versus Textured Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

article en

Abstract

Background and aim: Concerns about the potential carcinogenic effects of breast implants, particularly those with textured surfaces, have recently been raised by an increasing number of reports of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implants. The present study was conducted to evaluate oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the smooth implants vs. textured implants.Material and methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis study, international databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until July 2024 using keywords relevant to the study objectives. Cohort studies published in English that investigated the oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the surface type of implants were included in the study. STATA/MP. v17 software was used to analyze data.Results: Six studies were reviewed. The use of a textured implant vs smooth implant was associated with a significantly lower DFS (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.71-4.04) vs (HR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.57-4.35), (p<0.01).Conclusions: According to the results of the present meta-analysis, breast cancer recurrence may be related to the type of surface implant used for reconstruction.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Openalex Percentile: Top 43%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluation of the Oncologic Outcomes of Breast Cancer According to the Smooth Implants Versus Textured Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis · SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS