Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited

Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (01): 23-28. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2022.01.004

• Original Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of surgical methods for removal of polyacrylamide hydrogel in breasts

Pin Wang1, Jian Wu1,(), Yuanyuan Chen2, Wenlan Jiang3, Xiaoyan Wen2, Hong Liu1, Haobin Wang1, Zhangbo Xu1   

  1. 1. Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu 610031, China
    2. Department of Pathology, Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu 610031, China
    3. Medical Record Room, Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu 610031, China
  • Received:2020-03-23 Online:2022-02-01 Published:2022-04-06
  • Contact: Jian Wu

Abstract:

Objective

To compare two surgical methods for removal of polyacrylamide hydrogel.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 213 patients who underwent surgery to remove polyacrylamide hydrogel in their breasts in the Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu from June 2012 to December 2018. χ2 test was used to compare concomitant symptoms (pain, nodes, redness and swelling, ulcer, nipple discharge and breast enlargement) between 61 patients receiving minimally invasive aspiration (aspiration group) and 152 patients receiving open surgery to remove hydrogel and capsule via an areola incision (open surgery group). The age and the surgical parameters(the operation time, bleeding volume and postoperative drainage time) was expressed as M (P25, P75) because of skewed distribution. The rank sum test was used to compare the age and the surgical parameters between two groups. The χ2 test for trend was used to compare the proportion of patients receiving two different surgeries year by year.

Results

(1) The aspiration group had a lower incidence of preoperative pain and more patients without concomitant symptoms compared with open surgery group [29.5%(18/61)vs 50.7%(77/152), χ2=7.881, P=0.005; 52.5%(32/61) vs 29.6%(45/152), χ2=9.850, P=0.002]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of other concomitant symptoms (nodes, redness and swelling, ulcer, nipple discharge and breast enlargement) between two groups (χ2=3.323, 3.349, 2.869, 0.000, 0.020; P all>0.050). (2) The operation time and bleeding volume in open surgery group were significantly higher than those in aspiration group [141(120, 190) min vs 90(76, 116) min, Z=-8.719, P<0.001; 20(10, 20) ml vs 10(5, 20)ml, Z=-6.076, P<0.001]. There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage time between two groups [5(5, 6) d vs 5(5, 6) d, Z=0.111, P=0.912]. (3) Since 2012, more patients chose open surgery and the trend presented a significant difference between two groups (χ2=6.936, P=0.008).

Conclusions

Compared with minimally invasive aspiration, open surgery is more traumatic and difficult, but it can remove polyacrylamide hydrogel to the maximum and clear the residual capsule and degenerated tissues. Open surgery is preferred in patients with long-time polyacrylamide hydrogel breast augmentation and more concomitant symptoms.

Key words: Breast Implants, Surgical Procedures, Plastic, Postoperative Complications

京ICP 备07035254号-13
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 0086-10-51322630 E-mail: jcbd@medmail.com.cn
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd