<p>The article The ABC of BBA: A Personal Perspective of a 10 Point Plan is a structured expert opinion, which focuses on the technical, aesthetic and procedural aspects of BBA. The proposed 10-point framework provides for a practical approach for the surgeon, but most of the recommendations are based on personal experience and a narrative synthesis of the authors’ experience. There are also several statements—such as the preferred implant planes, the maintenance of the inframammary fold and that hybrid augmentation is better—with little evidence to support them. Moreover, patient-reported outcomes, cultural differences in aesthetic standards, and surgeon-specific learning curves are not fully discussed. More robust clinical relevance of such recommendations could be achieved by the increased integration of validated patient-centered and clinical outcome measures (BREAST-Q). The overall value of the paper lies in its didactic expert overview, but its conclusions ought to be read with caution, as no comparative research and patient-based evidence are used to validate them.</p><p><i>Level of Evidence V</i> This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The ABC of BBA: A Personal Perspective of a 10 Point Plan: A Critical Appraisal

  • Iqra Akhtar,
  • Muhammad Hassaan Javaid

摘要

The article The ABC of BBA: A Personal Perspective of a 10 Point Plan is a structured expert opinion, which focuses on the technical, aesthetic and procedural aspects of BBA. The proposed 10-point framework provides for a practical approach for the surgeon, but most of the recommendations are based on personal experience and a narrative synthesis of the authors’ experience. There are also several statements—such as the preferred implant planes, the maintenance of the inframammary fold and that hybrid augmentation is better—with little evidence to support them. Moreover, patient-reported outcomes, cultural differences in aesthetic standards, and surgeon-specific learning curves are not fully discussed. More robust clinical relevance of such recommendations could be achieved by the increased integration of validated patient-centered and clinical outcome measures (BREAST-Q). The overall value of the paper lies in its didactic expert overview, but its conclusions ought to be read with caution, as no comparative research and patient-based evidence are used to validate them.

Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.