A comparison of conventional and low-bleed implants in augmentation mammaplasty

Lawrence Chang, Elethea Caldwell, George Reading, R. Christie Wray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We conducted a double-blind, retrospective comparison between low-bleed and non-low-bleed (conventional) mammary implants because no controlled study has shown a difference in the degree of capsular contracture between the two types of implants. Twenty-five patients had conventional implants and form group A; twentyeight patients had low-bleed implants and form group B. All patients had submuscular augmentation. The mean Baker score was 1.51 for group A and 1.04 for group B for the entire patient population and 1.65 for group A and 1.07 for group B for patients with more than 1 year of follow-up. For the entire population, 34 percent of group A and 3.6 percent of group B had a Baker score of 2 or greater. For the population with more than 1 year of follow-up, 42 percent of group A and 7 percent of group B had a Baker score of 2 or greater. There was significantly (p 0.007) less contracture with the low-bleed implants for the entire population as well as for those patients with greater than 1 year of follow-up (p 0.015).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-82
Number of pages4
JournalPlastic and reconstructive surgery
Volume89
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1992

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of conventional and low-bleed implants in augmentation mammaplasty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this