MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2026
Re-operations five years following breast augmentation after massive weight loss: A population-based study of 1634 cases and 7023 controls.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hansson Emma, Ottosson Johan, Halle Martin, Grimby-Ekman Anna, Paganini Anna
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Breast augmentation after massive weight loss (MWL) is surgically challenging owing to altered anatomy and tissue quality. Previous case series suggest higher revision rates, but controlled, population-based evidence is lacking. We aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes, including reoperation frequency and indications, after primary augmentation in MWL patients compared with matched controls.
METHODS: We performed a nationwide, population-based case-control study using prospectively collected registry data (SOReg and BRIMP). The cohort comprised 817 MWL patients undergoing 1634 primary augmentations and 3512 matched controls with 7023 procedures (2004-2022). Follow-up averaged 5.4 (SD 2.9) and 5.6 (SD 2.8) years, respectively. Revision procedures, indications for re-operations, and intraoperative findings were analyzed. Statistical comparisons employed the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction.
RESULTS: Reoperation was more frequent in MWL patients (9.4% vs. 7.1%, p<0.001), with shorter time to first revision (1.5 (SD 1.8) vs. 2.3 (SD 2.4) years, p<0.001). Implant malposition (20% vs. 11%, p=0.004), rotation (9.5% vs. 3.1%, p=0.002), and seroma (6.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.002) were more common in MWL revisions. Indications were similar, most often patient-driven changes.
CONCLUSION: Breast augmentation after MWL carries a higher and earlier risk of reoperation compared with the controls, though absolute complication rates remain low. These findings provide population-based evidence to guide patient counseling and surgical planning in this complex group.
METHODS: We performed a nationwide, population-based case-control study using prospectively collected registry data (SOReg and BRIMP). The cohort comprised 817 MWL patients undergoing 1634 primary augmentations and 3512 matched controls with 7023 procedures (2004-2022). Follow-up averaged 5.4 (SD 2.9) and 5.6 (SD 2.8) years, respectively. Revision procedures, indications for re-operations, and intraoperative findings were analyzed. Statistical comparisons employed the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests with Bonferroni-Holm correction.
RESULTS: Reoperation was more frequent in MWL patients (9.4% vs. 7.1%, p<0.001), with shorter time to first revision (1.5 (SD 1.8) vs. 2.3 (SD 2.4) years, p<0.001). Implant malposition (20% vs. 11%, p=0.004), rotation (9.5% vs. 3.1%, p=0.002), and seroma (6.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.002) were more common in MWL revisions. Indications were similar, most often patient-driven changes.
CONCLUSION: Breast augmentation after MWL carries a higher and earlier risk of reoperation compared with the controls, though absolute complication rates remain low. These findings provide population-based evidence to guide patient counseling and surgical planning in this complex group.