The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation of the Influence of Implant Surface on the Formation of Bacterial Biofilm in Mammary Implants
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture remains the most common complication following breast augmentation surgery, and evidence suggests that bacterial biofilm on the implant surface is responsible. The authors investigated whether the interaction of bacterial biofilm with implants independently determines progression to capsule formation. They also studied the rate of bacterial growth and adhesion to implants. METHODS: Sixteen adult female pigs had 121 breast implants inserted. Sixty-six implants-23 smooth and 43 textured-were inoculated with a human strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis and received no other treatment. After an average period of 19 weeks, Baker grading was performed and implants were retrieved. For the in vitro study, samples underwent both quantitative bacterial analysis and imaging using confocal laser scanning and scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: At explantation, there was no significant difference (p = 1.0) in the presence of capsular contracture (Baker grade III and IV) between smooth (83 percent) and textured implants (84 percent). Biofilm was confirmed on 60 of the 66 capsules. Capsules from smooth and textured implants had the same number of infecting bacteria (textured: 3.01 × 10 bacteria/g; smooth: 3.00 × 10 bacteria/g). In vitro, the surface of textured implants showed 11-, 43-, and 72-fold more bacteria at 2, 6, and 24 hours, respectively, compared with smooth implants (p < 0.001). These findings were confirmed by imaging analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that textured implants develop a significantly higher load of bacterial biofilm in comparison with smooth implants. Furthermore, in vivo, once a threshold of biofilm forms on either smooth or textured implant surfaces, there seems to be an equal propensity to progress to capsular contracture.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
RESISTANCE OF SOLID SURFACES TO WETTING BY WATER
Wenzel, R. N. (1936) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ie50320a024 · Cited by 13,316
Xu, L.-C., & Siedlecki, C. A. (2012) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2011.08.009 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Loch-Wilkinson, A., Beath, K. J., Knight, R. J. W., Wessels, W. L. F., Magnusson, M., Papadopoulos, T., Connell, T., Lofts, J., Locke, M., Hopper, I., et al. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003654 · Cited by 373
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacombs, A., Tahir, S., Hu, H., Deva, A. K., Almatroudi, A., Wessels, W. L. F., Bradshaw, D. A., & Vickery, K.
- Venue
- Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 471e-480e
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2313661281
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation of the Influence of Implant Surface on the Formation of Bacterial Biofilm in Mammary Implants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/prs.0000000000000020
- The paper
- Jacombs, A., Tahir, S., Hu, H., Deva, A. K., Almatroudi, A., Wessels, W. L. F., Bradshaw, D. A., & Vickery, K. (2014). In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation of the Influence of Implant Surface on the Formation of Bacterial Biofilm in Mammary Implants. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000020
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.