Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40686789›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2025

Implant surface selection in primary cosmetic breast augmentation: A national cross-sectional study of UK plastic surgeons.

Chloe Jordan, Krzysztof Sosnowski, Rushabh Shah, Charles Malata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chloe JordanDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Rd, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Krzysztof SosnowskiSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Hills Rd, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Rushabh ShahDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Rd, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Charles MalataDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Rd, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Breast augmentation remains one of the most common cosmetic surgical procedures globally yet implant surface preference (textured versus smooth) remains a key area of debate. Whilst textured implants have traditionally been favoured in the UK and Europe, concerns around breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and the absence of formal guidelines have contributed to wide variations in practice. This study therefore examines current UK practice among plastic surgeons, focusing on surgeon preferences and the factors guiding decision-making. Methods: An anonymised online survey was distributed to UK consultant plastic surgeons performing cosmetic breast augmentation. Data collected included implant surface, brand, incision, pocket, case volume, and ranked decision-making factors. Free-text responses were analysed thematically. Descriptive statistics and chi-square testing were used to explore associations. Results: Seventy-five consultant plastic surgeons responded (response rate = 31.3 %). Textured implants were most commonly used (82.7 %), although smooth implants were more frequently selected by high-volume surgeons (>50 cases/year, χ²(5) = 11.79, Conclusion: UK practice in cosmetic breast augmentation remains varied. Although most surgeons preferred textured implants, a shift towards smooth implants appears to be emerging among high-volume operators.

Indexed as

BIA-ALCLBreast augmentationBreast implantsCosmetic surgeryImplant selectionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID40686789
PMCPMC12270748

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.