The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge.   This study provides the first large-volume (1000 implant) comparison of the deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants versus a control group of Mentor Siltex textured saline implants. A consecutive series of 500 Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants was compared with a consecutive series of 500 Mentor Siltex breast implants. Each breast implant was evaluated for a 4-year period, and the annual deflation rate (number of deflations during a given year divided by the total number of implants) and cumulative deflation rate (cumulative total of deflations through a given year divided by the total number of implants) were recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using the Fisher's exact test at year 1 and the chi-square analysis at years 2 through 4. The cumulative deflation rates of the Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was as follows: year 1, 1.2 percent; year 2, 5.6 percent; year 3, 11.4 percent; and year 4, 15.4 percent. The cumulative deflation rates of the Mentor implants was: year 1, 0.2 percent; year 2, 0.6 percent; year 3, 1.6 percent; and year 4, 4.4 percent. At year 1, the difference between deflation rates was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p>0.05). However, at year 2 (chi-square, 13.29; p<0.001), year 3 (chi-square, 37.91; p<0.001), and year 4 (chi-square, 32.69; p<0.001), the difference was statistically significant.   **Question:** A comparison of 500 prefilled textured saline breast implants versus 500 standard textured saline breast implants: is there a difference in deflation rates?   (A) Yes   (B) No   (C) Maybe
['(A) Yes <> answer', 'The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge. <> instruction', '(A) Yes \n (B) No \n (C) Maybe <> possible answers', "This study provides the first large-volume (1000 implant) comparison of the deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants versus a control group of Mentor Siltex textured saline implants. A consecutive series of 500 Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants was compared with a consecutive series of 500 Mentor Siltex breast implants. Each breast implant was evaluated for a 4-year period, and the annual deflation rate (number of deflations during a given year divided by the total number of implants) and cumulative deflation rate (cumulative total of deflations through a given year divided by the total number of implants) were recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using the Fisher's exact test at year 1 and the chi-square analysis at years 2 through 4. The cumulative deflation rates of the Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was as follows: year 1, 1.2 percent; year 2, 5.6 percent; year 3, 11.4 percent; and year 4, 15.4 percent. The cumulative deflation rates of the Mentor implants was: year 1, 0.2 percent; year 2, 0.6 percent; year 3, 1.6 percent; and year 4, 4.4 percent. At year 1, the difference between deflation rates was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p>0.05). However, at year 2 (chi-square, 13.29; p<0.001), year 3 (chi-square, 37.91; p<0.001), and year 4 (chi-square, 32.69; p<0.001), the difference was statistically significant. \n   A comparison of 500 prefilled textured saline breast implants versus 500 standard textured saline breast implants: is there a difference in deflation rates? <> context@"]