Breast Implant Selection: Consensus Recommendations Using a Modified Delphi Method.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
03
01
2019
accepted:
08
03
2019
entrez:
24
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
25
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Geographical differences in breast implant selection approaches exist, and clinical data to guide the process are limited. Developing knowledge of implant-related risk factors further complicates the process. This analysis aimed to establish expert consensus on considerations for breast implant selection in Australia and New Zealand based on practice patterns in those countries. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus from experts in breast augmentation surgery in Australia and New Zealand. Panelists anonymously completed an initial questionnaire on current considerations in implant selection, discussed a summary of their responses in a live meeting, and completed a final consensus survey based on their live recommendations. Seven panelists completed the final consensus survey. Consensus recommendations included ensuring consideration of proper surgical technique (pocket formation, positioning of implant) and patient tissue and anatomical characteristics, weighing relative expected results of various surface textures, sizes, and degrees of cohesivity, and careful contemplation of the migration risk. This modified Delphi exercise provided consensus recommendations on the key factors involved in implant selection from the perspective of plastic surgeons with practices in Australia and New Zealand. A primary recommendation was that the choice of implant for each patient should be individualized to patient tissue and anatomical characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Geographical differences in breast implant selection approaches exist, and clinical data to guide the process are limited. Developing knowledge of implant-related risk factors further complicates the process. This analysis aimed to establish expert consensus on considerations for breast implant selection in Australia and New Zealand based on practice patterns in those countries.
METHODS
METHODS
A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus from experts in breast augmentation surgery in Australia and New Zealand. Panelists anonymously completed an initial questionnaire on current considerations in implant selection, discussed a summary of their responses in a live meeting, and completed a final consensus survey based on their live recommendations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven panelists completed the final consensus survey. Consensus recommendations included ensuring consideration of proper surgical technique (pocket formation, positioning of implant) and patient tissue and anatomical characteristics, weighing relative expected results of various surface textures, sizes, and degrees of cohesivity, and careful contemplation of the migration risk.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This modified Delphi exercise provided consensus recommendations on the key factors involved in implant selection from the perspective of plastic surgeons with practices in Australia and New Zealand. A primary recommendation was that the choice of implant for each patient should be individualized to patient tissue and anatomical characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31333962
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002237
pmc: PMC6571346
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e2237Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Apr;133(4):567e-583e
pubmed: 24675209
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Oct;142(4):837-849
pubmed: 30252806
Gland Surg. 2017 Apr;6(2):203-209
pubmed: 28497024
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Dec 09;3(11):e556
pubmed: 26893981
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Jun;139(6):1367-1378
pubmed: 28538561
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Dec;116(7):2005-16
pubmed: 16327616
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jun;137(6):1728-1737
pubmed: 27219229
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Dec 09;3(11):e557
pubmed: 26893982
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Nov;64(11):1401-9
pubmed: 21524951
Clin Plast Surg. 2015 Oct;42(4):413-26
pubmed: 26408433
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Oct;140(4):645-654
pubmed: 28481803
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):427-431
pubmed: 28841597
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Dec;126(6):2150-2159
pubmed: 20697317
Aesthet Surg J. 2014 Aug;34(6):876-81
pubmed: 25024450
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov;138(5):987-994
pubmed: 27782989
JAMA Surg. 2017 Dec 1;152(12):1161-1168
pubmed: 29049466
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 Feb 17;38(2):133-148
pubmed: 28591762
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Apr 1;109(4):1396-409; discussion 1410-5
pubmed: 11964998
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Oct;68(10):1364-9
pubmed: 26116968
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Aug;136(2):263-272
pubmed: 26218376
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 Feb 15;38(3):254-261
pubmed: 29106482
Aesthet Surg J. 2014 Sep;34(7):1050-8
pubmed: 25056910
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Sep;66(9):1165-72
pubmed: 23664574
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1059e-1060e
pubmed: 25724059
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jul;128(1):13-16
pubmed: 21701294
Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Dec 13;38(1):38-48
pubmed: 29040370
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017 Nov;75:75-81
pubmed: 28697402
Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Nov;35(8):965-71
pubmed: 26333989
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
pubmed: 24581294
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 May 15;38(6):623-626
pubmed: 29452341
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013 Mar;10(2):257-67
pubmed: 23480094
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013 May;21:133-48
pubmed: 23545265
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018 Dec;88:377-385
pubmed: 30205325