<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0376-7892</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Cirugía Plástica Ibero-Latinoamericana]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Cir. plást. iberolatinoam.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0376-7892</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica, Reparadora y Estética (SECPRE)]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0376-78922017000400239</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4321/s0376-78922017000400004</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Implantes mamarios en España: resultados de encuesta a cirujanos plásticos]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Breast implants in Spain: results of a survey to plastic surgeons]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Benito-Ruiz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Jesús]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica, Reparadora y Estética (SECPRE)  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
<country>España</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>09</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>09</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>43</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<fpage>239</fpage>
<lpage>246</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0376-78922017000400239&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0376-78922017000400239&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0376-78922017000400239&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen  Introducción y Objetivo La cirugía de implantes mamarios tiene un impacto social, científico y económico de primer orden. Recientemente se han producido algunas controversias en cuanto a la texturizacíón de los implantes y su relación con ciertas complicaciones, así como en cuanto a sus garantías. Llevamos a cabo una encuesta entre cirujanos plásticos españoles para conocer su opinión sobre ciertos aspectos relacionados con los implantes mamarios: tipos, complicaciones, garantías.  Material y Método Los cuestionarios se repartieron vía internet en un periodo de 15 días en la primera mitad del mes de noviembre del 2016 a 760 cirujanos plásticos, miembros numerarios de la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica, Reparadora y Estética (SECPRE).  Resultados Contestaron 216. No encontramos diferencias significativas en cuanto al tipo de implante usado, siendo el implante anatómico ligeramente más frecuente. Las marcas norteamericanas Allergan® y Mentor® dominan la cuota de mercado en este segmento, tanto para prótesis anatómicas (60%) como redondas (50%). Un 30% de encuestados habían cambiado de marca recientemente. En cuanto a la garantía ofrecida por los fabricantes, la mayor parte de los cirujanos (68%) están conformes con ella, aunque también la mayoría (56.9%) piensa que debería ser vitalicia y que las pacientes están mal informadas al respecto. Los resultados también muestran una gran desconfianza del profesional frente a la objetividad de la casa fabricante cuando esta ha de evaluar el implante para determinar si la garantía es aplicable.  Conclusiones Existe un predominio de uso de prótesis anatómicas respecto a redondas entre los cirujanos plásticos españoles que contestaron la encuesta. Sin embargo, parece que algunos han cambiado su preferencia ante el miedo a problemas como doble cápsula, seromas e incluso linfoma anaplásico de células gigantes (LACG). Respecto a la garantía, se percibe como un beneficio para la paciente aunque debería durar toda su vida. La información que se tiene acerca de dichos programas se considera pobre. En general hay una gran desconfianza entre los encuestados en relación a los análisis que los propios fabricantes hacen de las prótesis rotas.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract  Background and Objective Breast implants surgery has a major social, scientific and economic impact. Recently there have been some controversies regarding the texture of the implants and their relation with certain complications as well as with the guarantees of the implants. A survey was carried out among Spanish plastic surgeons to know their opinion on certain aspects related to breast implants: types, complications, guarantees.  Methods The questionnaires were sent online during the first half of November 2016 to 760 surgeons, all of them members of the Spanish Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (SECPRE).  Results There were 216 answers. There was no significant difference in the type of implants used, with the anatomic slightly more frequent in use. American brands Allergan® and Mentor® dominate the market share in this segment, both for anatomical prostheses (60%) and round (50%). Thirty per cent of respondents had recently changed brands. As for the warranty offered by the manufacturers, most surgeons are satisfied with it (68%), although most think it should be lifelong (56.9%) and that the patient is misinformed about it. The results also show a great distrust of the professional against the objectivity of the manufacturer when they have to evaluate the implant to determine if the guarantee is applicable.  Conclusions There is a predominance of use of anatomical prostheses compared to round among surgeons who have answered the survey. However, it seems that a group has changed their preference for fear of problems like double capsule, seroma and even anaplasic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Regarding the guarantee, it is perceived as a benefit for the patient although it should last throughout her life. Information about these programs is considered poor. In general there is a great distrust among the respondents in relation to the analysis that the own manufacturers do on the prostheses broken.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Implantes mamarios]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Prótesis mamarias]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Aumento mamario]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Mamoplatia aumento]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Contractura capsular]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Rotura implantes]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Garantía implantes]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Breast implants]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Mammary implants]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Mammary prosthesis]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Breast augmentation]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Augmentative mammoplasty]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Capsular contracture]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Implants rupture]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Implants warranty]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<source><![CDATA[]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cunnigham]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McCue]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Safety and effectiveness of Mentor&#8217;s MemoryGel implants at 6 years]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Aesth. Plast. Surg.]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>33</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>440-4</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hammond]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DC]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Migliori]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Caplin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garcia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ME]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Phillips]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast Reconstr Surg]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>129</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>1381-91</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spear]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SL]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Murphy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DK]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr Surg]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>133</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>1354-61</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maxwell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GP]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Van Natta]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[BW]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bengtson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[BP]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Murphy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DK]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Aesth. Surg. J.]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>35</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>145-55</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stevens]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[WG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Harrington]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Alizadeh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Five-Year Follow-Up Data from the US Clinical Trial for Sientra&#8217;s US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Silimed® Brand Round and Shaped Implants with High-Strength Silicone Gel]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr. Surg]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>130</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>973-81</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Duteille]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rouif]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Laurent]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cannon]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Five-year safety data for Gca Aesthetics&#8217;s round and anatomical silicone gel breast implants]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hall-Findlay]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EJ]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr Surg]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>127</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>56-66</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maxwell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GP]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brown]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Oefelein]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kaplan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hedén]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Clinical considerations regarding the risks and benefits of textured surface implants and double capsule]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr Surg.]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>128</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>593-5</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maxwell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GP]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Scheflan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spear]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nava]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MB]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hedén]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Aesth Surg J]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>34</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>876-81</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brody]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GS]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Deape]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Taylor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CR]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr Surg]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>135</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>695-705</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Caplin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Indications for the use of Memory Shape breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: longterm clinical outcomes of shaped versus round silicone breast implants]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast Reconstr. Surg]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>134</volume>
<numero>3S</numero>
<issue>3S</issue>
<page-range>27S-37S</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hammond]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Vargo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wixtrom]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Canady]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Long-term Clinical Performance Of Memory shape® Breast Implants In Breast Augmentation And Reconstruction: Prospective Data Through 10 Years]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast Reconstr. Surg]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>135</volume>
<numero>4S</numero>
<issue>4S</issue>
<page-range>1255</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Handel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Garcia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ME]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wixtrom]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Plast. Reconstr. Surg]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<volume>132</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>1128-37</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Necchi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Molina]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Turri]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Failure of silicone gel breast implants: Is the mechanical weakening due to shell swelling a significant cause of prostheses rupture?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>4</volume>
<numero>8</numero>
<issue>8</issue>
<page-range>2002-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brandon]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Taylor]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ML]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Powell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[TE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walker]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[PS]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Morphology of breast implant fold flaw failure]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of long-term effects of medical implants]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>16</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>441-50</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
