↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Capsular contracture by silicone breast implants: possible causes, biocompatibility, and prophylactic strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Capsular contracture by silicone breast implants: possible causes, biocompatibility, and prophylactic strategies
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, December 2013
DOI 10.2147/mder.s49522
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas E Steiert, Maria Boyce, Heiko Sorg

Abstract

The most common implanted material in the human body consists of silicone. Breast augmentation and breast reconstruction using silicone-based implants are procedures frequently performed by reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons. A main complication of this procedure continues to be the development of capsular contracture (CC), displaying the result of a fibrotic foreign body reaction after the implantation of silicone. For many years, experimental and clinical trials have attempted to analyze the problem of its etiology, treatment, and prophylaxis. Different theories of CC formation are known; however, the reason why different individuals develop CC in days or a month, or only after years, is unknown. Therefore, we hypothesize that CC formation, might primarily be induced by immunological mechanisms along with other reasons. This article attempts to review CC formation, with special attention paid to immunological and inflammatory reasons, as well as actual prophylactic strategies. In this context, the word "biocompatibility" has been frequently used to describe the overall biological innocuousness of silicone in the respective studies, although without clear-cut definitions of this important feature. We have therefore developed a new five-point scale with distinct key points of biocompatibility. Hence, this article might provide the basis for ongoing discussion in this field to reduce single-publication definitions as well as increase the understanding of biocompatibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#92
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,054
of 321,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.