Smooth Prosthesis: Our Experience and Current State of Art in the Use of Smooth Sub-muscular Silicone Gel Breast Implants

Complication Profiles of Smooth vs Textured Tissue Expanders in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma first linked with breast implants in 2011. The correlation between BIA-ALCL and textured devices has led to increased use of smooth devices. However, much of the data surrounding smooth and textured devices investigates breast implants specifically and not tissue expanders.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare surgical outcomes for smooth tissue expanders (STEs) and textured tissue expanders (TTEs).

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, including articles from 2016 to 2023 (n = 419). Studies comparing TTEs and STEs and reported complications were included. A random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles met inclusion criteria, representing 1709 patients in the STE cohort and 1716 patients in the TTE cohort. The mean duration of tissue expansion with STEs was 221.25 days, while TTEs had a mean time of tissue expansion of 220.43 days.Our meta-analysis found no differences in all surgical outcomes except for explantation risk. STE use was associated with increased odds of explantation by over 50% compared to TTE use (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.02; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, STEs and TTEs had similar complication profiles. However, STEs had 1.5 times higher odds of explantation. The incidence of BIA-ALCL is low, and only a single case of BIA-ALCL has been reported with TTEs. This indicates that TTEs are safe and may lower the risk of early complications requiring explantation. Further studies are warranted to further define the relationship between tissue expanders and BIA-ALCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Patient-Specific 3D Printed Soft Models for Liver Surgical Planning and Hands-On Training

Background: Pre-surgical simulation-based training with three-dimensional (3D) models has been intensively developed in complex surgeries in recent years. This is also the case in liver surgery, although with fewer reported examples. The simulation-based training with 3D models represents an alternative to current surgical simulation methods based on animal or ex vivo models or virtual reality (VR), showing reported advantages, which makes the development of realistic 3D-printed models an option. This work presents an innovative, low-cost approach for producing patient-specific 3D anatomical models for hands-on simulation and training. Methods: The article reports three paediatric cases presenting complex liver tumours that were transferred to a major paediatric referral centre for treatment: hepatoblastoma, hepatic hamartoma and biliary tract rhabdomyosarcoma. The complete process of the additively manufactured liver tumour simulators is described, and the different steps for the correct development of each case are explained: (1) medical image acquisition; (2) segmentation; (3) 3D printing; (4) quality control/validation; and (5) cost. A digital workflow for liver cancer surgical planning is proposed. Results: Three hepatic surgeries were planned, with 3D simulators built using 3D printing and silicone moulding techniques. The 3D physical models showed highly accurate replications of the actual condition. Additionally, they proved to be more cost-effective in comparison with other models. Conclusions: It is demonstrated that it is possible to manufacture accurate and cost-effective 3D-printed soft surgical planning simulators for treating liver cancer. The 3D models allowed for proper pre-surgical planning and simulation training in the three cases reported, making it a valuable aid for surgeons.

Evolving Trends in Breast-Implant-Based Procedures in Israel: A National Survey

Rare reports linking textured breast implants to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma have generated controversies regarding their relative advantage over smooth implants. To evaluate trends in implant use in Israel, we sent a seven-item questionnaire to all active board-certified breast plastic surgeons in the country. About half responded. Approximately 60% of responders reported a moderate-to-considerable decrease in both the relative number of augmentation mammoplasty procedures and the use of implants during mastopexies in the last year. Nearly 40% had switched from textured to smooth implants to some extent. More than 40% still used textured implants for aesthetic procedures, and reconstructive procedures. Surgeons with more experience demonstrated a greater preference for smooth implants. The uncertainty regarding the safety of textured breast implants has led to a partial transition to the use of smoother implants and, importantly, to a general reduction in all breast-implant-based procedures.

Smooth Versus Textured Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Complications and Efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Ongoing recognition of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and its link with textured devices has brought a paradigm shift in prosthetic-based breast reconstruction. Many institutions no longer offer textured expansion devices for staged reconstruction. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of smooth tissue expanders (TE). We hypothesized that the time to final reconstruction and complication profile between smooth and textured TEs would be similar in breast reconstruction patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent TE breast reconstruction during a 6-year period at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Rates of complications treated nonoperatively and those requiring reoperation were assessed. Mechanical complications, including expander malposition and rupture, were evaluated. Time to final breast reconstruction was quantified. Mixed-effects logistic regression and linear regression models, as appropriate, were used to compare textured to smooth TEs. Patient characteristics and anatomic plane placement were adjusted for in all analyses of outcomes.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 389 patients, encompassing 140 smooth and 604 textured TEs. Textured devices had an increased incidence of complications treated nonsurgically (16.7% vs 10.7%; P = 0.14). However, smooth TEs had an increased incidence of reoperation (12.1% vs 7.6%; P = 0.06). Most noteworthy was that although smooth TEs had a 40-fold increase in malposition (13.6% vs 0.3%; P < 0.001), no reoperation for this complication was warranted. Further, the time to final reconstruction was comparable between the 2 devices (textured expanders: 221 days and smooth expanders: 234 days; P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Staged, implant-based reconstruction is the most common surgical approach to recreate the breast mound following mastectomy. Textured TEs were the cornerstone to this approach. Unfortunately, the association between textured devices and BIA-ALCL now mandates an alternative. We postulated that smooth expanders would compare favorably for breast reconstruction. Although our study suggests that smooth TEs suffer more malposition, this has a negligible impact on the reconstructive timeline. Thus, smooth TEs may prove beneficial when considering the risk of BIA-ALCL associated with textured devices.

Smooth versus Textured Implants and Their Association with the Frequency of Capsular Contracture in Primary Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture is the most frequent complication of breast implant augmentation. Although studies indicate that textured implants have a low incidence of contracture, they have been associated with anaplastic cell lymphoma, which influences the choice of surface. This study estimated and compared the annual capsular contracture rate of both smooth and textured implants in primary breast implants.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-three patients (506 implants) were evaluated from January of 2017 to July of 2019; 42.2 percent of the implants were smooth and 57.8 percent were textured. The inframammary approach was used in the subfascial (55.3 percent) and submuscular (44.7 percent) pockets. The primary outcome was the appearance of capsular contracture (Baker grade II, III, and IV) within the first postoperative year.

RESULTS

Smooth implants had a higher capsular contracture rate at 1 year postoperatively compared with textured implants, although with borderline statistical significance (p = 0.06). Smooth surface breast implants in the subfascial plane had a 4-fold higher risk of contracture than those with a textured surface in the same plane (OR, 4.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 12.4). However, when placed in the submuscular plane, both textures had a similar contracture risk. The rate of contracture was similar after 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the inframammary approach and a standardized technique, there were no significant differences in the incidence of capsular contracture between the smooth and textured implants. In the subfascial plane, the contracture rate with smooth implants was higher than with textured implants. However, in the submuscular plane, there was no difference between the surfaces.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW

Therapeutic, III.

The Role of High Resolution Ultrasonography in Elucidating Features of the Breast Implants in Asymptomatic Patients After Implant-based Augmentation Mammaplasty

BACKGROUND

We conducted this study to describe the feasibility of high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty.

METHODS

The current study was conducted in a total of 612 patients (n =6 12) receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty at other hospitals between August 31, 2017 and August 31, 2020. Of these, 136 patients (n = 136; 272 breasts) receiving reoperation were included in the current study. We compared between the patients' subjective awareness of a breast implant and its HRUS findings and an agreement between HRUS findings of a breast implant and its findings at reoperation.

RESULTS

The proportion of the patients receiving a silicone gel-filled breast implant was increased from 65.44% (89/136) to 81.61% (111/136) on HRUS. Moreover, HRUS was effective in identifying a manufacturer of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our results indicate that HRUS is feasible in characterizing a breast implant in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty. But further prospective, large-scale studies are warranted to corroborate our results.

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 .

Prevention of Breast Implant Displacement Using the Acellular Dermal Matrix Garter Belt

BACKGROUND

Since the issue of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, smooth breast implants tend to be the more preferred option in implant-based breast reconstructions, compared to its use previously. The most unfavorable aspect of smooth implants is lateral and inferior displacements, which are more common in patients who undergo breast reconstruction compared to augmentation mammoplasty. Hence, we introduce a prevention method for implant displacement using an acellular dermal matrix garter belt.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of patients who had undergone implant-based breast reconstruction between April 2019 and December 2020. Some patients who have highly possibility of implant displacement, had undergone the application of an ADM garter belt to prevent lateral or superior displacement. Implant displacement was assessed before and at least 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 155 IBR cases were recorded. ADM garter belts were applied in 27 patients (17.4%) who had a high tendency of implant displacement for several reasons, which could be classified into two categories: wide breast pocket (56%) and tight inferomedial breast pocket (44%). The intraoperative average distance of lateral slipping on patients' reconstructed breasts from the chest wall midline in supine position was 3.02 ± 0.81 cm and corrected to1.54 ± 0.69 cm at least 6 months postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We utilized an ADM strap as an internalized garter belt to minimize implant displacement. This ADM garter belt combined with capsuloplasty might be an effective way to prevent the displacement of smooth implants in the patients with a greater risk of implant displacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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.

A Prospective Investigation of Predictive Parameters for Preoperative Volume Assessment in Breast Reconstruction

Preoperative breast volume estimation is very important for the success of the breast surgery. In this study four different breast volume determination methods were compared. The end-point of this prospective study was to evaluate the concordance between different modalities of breast volume assessment (MRI, BREAST-V, mastectomy specimen weight, conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen) and the breast prosthetic volume implanted. The study enrolled 64 patients between 2017 and 2019, who had all been treated by the same surgeons for monolateral nipple–areola complex-sparing mastectomy and implant breast reconstruction. Only patients who had a breast reconstruction classified as “excellent” from an objective (BCCT.core software) and subjective (questionnaire) point of view at the 6-month interval after the operation were included in the study. Data analysis highlighted a strong correlation between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the weights of mastectomy converted into volume, especially for patients with grades B and C parenchymal density. The values of the agreement between the volumes of the chosen prostheses and the assessments from MRI and BREAST -V proved to be lower than expected from the literature. None of the four studied methods presented any strong correlation with the initial breast width. Our results suggest that conversion from weight to volume of mastectomy specimen should be used to assist in determining the volume of the breast implant to be implanted. This method would help the reconstructive surgeon guide the choice of the most appropriate implant preoperatively.

Reduced capsular contracture with smooth and textured breast implants following submuscular mammoplasty: systematic literature review

Background: Capsular contracture is common in breast augmentation and reconstruction surgery. The present systematic review discusses the safety of textured and smooth implants in the submuscular position. Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed and EMBASE from inception until June 2020. The primary outcome was reduction of capsular contracture (Baker grade); others included time of capsular contracture onset, implant position/rupture rate/surface, hematoma/seroma risk, surgeon assessment and patient satisfaction. A total of 7731 patients were included from six publications. Results: The overall risk rate for capsular contracture increased from 7.6 to 25% in 10 years. The capsular contracture rates in textured and smooth implants were 3-14% and 6-20%, respectively, and no significant difference between implants was observed when the implants were placed submuscularly. Submuscular placement and textured implants also reduced the incidence of other complications. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that appropriate placement reduces capsular contracture rate, irrespective of implant surface.

Surgical Treatment of Capsular Contracture (CC): Literature Review and Outcomes Utilizing Implants in Revisionary Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this clinical review is to provide an overview of the use of breast implants after capsular contracture (CC) surgical treatment, with a focus on type of implants used. Furthermore, our experience in this field is also reviewed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar databases were reviewed to identify literature related to surgical treatment of capsular contracture and implant replacement. Each article was reviewed by two independent reviewers to ensure all relevant publications were identified. The literature search identified 54 applicable articles. Of these, 26 were found to have a therapeutic level of evidence. The reference lists in each relevant paper were screened manually to include relevant papers not found through the initial search.

RESULTS

Only four articles report the replacement of implants after surgical treatment of capsular contracture. Six articles reported an implant exchange with only smooth silicone gel filled implants. Two reviews advice to use smooth implants in implant replacement.

CONCLUSION

With our expertise in the field and the results of this up-to-date literature review, it can be concluded that implant exchange is recommended in case of breast revision for capsular contracture, and the use of subpectoral smooth silicone gel breast implants is a good option after surgical treatment in patients with primary or recurrence Baker III-IV.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Three-Year Intermediate Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study Investigating the use of Smooth, Semi-Smooth, Microtextured and Macrotextured Implants from a Single Manufacturer in Breast Augmentation and Reconstruction Procedures

Silicone gel-filled implants exist in a wide range of shapes and textures, and yet there are relatively few long-term large-scale studies, particularly on recently developed "semi-smooth" implants. The present study fills this gap by presenting the 3-year findings from an ongoing 10-year multicenter prospective study on breast implants with four different surface types: smooth, semi-smooth, microtextured, and macrotextured. A total of 908 patients were recruited in 15 investigational sites across Europe and divided into three groups: 653 primary augmentations in Group 1, 144 revision augmentations in Group 2, and 111 reconstructions in Group 3. All 4 types of implant shells were manufactured by the same company using the same silicone material. Surgeons were free to choose their preferred technique and implant surface, but data were collected using a standardized software and included all complications, and satisfaction levels reported by the patients at each visit. The incidence of post-operative complications was estimated based on Kaplan-Meier risk rates, on a per patient basis. At 3 years post implantation, capsular contracture (Baker grade III/IV) was the most common complication, with a per-patient risk rate of 1.5% in Group 1. Interestingly, there was no capsular contracture in this group when semi-smooth implants were used. The risk of implant rupture in Group 1 was 0.2%. The preliminary findings of this 10-year prospective study indicate that, 3 years after the operation, the four types of silicone gel-filled implants investigated were safe, with a low complication rate in comparison with the most favorable results published in other similar studies.

[Impact of breast dimension in one-stage augmentation mastopexies on implant selection: review of 103 consecutive breast augmentations with nanotextured silicone implants]

INTRODUCTION

According to current studies, one-stage augmentation mastopexy (AM) is associated with only minor complications and a lower reoperation rate compared with a staged procedure. In AM, breast dimension can differ notably compared with those cases without simultaneous mastopexy. However, these differences have only been insufficiently investigated. This study aims to quantify the differences and then evaluate the effect of breast dimension on implant selection. In addition, it evaluates the influence of mastopexy on the outcome of augmentation mammoplasties with round nanotextured silicone gel implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a two-year period, all patients with primary augmentation mammoplasties using nanotextured implants were included in the study. Patients' demographic data, breast measurements, specifications of the implants placed, and complications in the breast augmentation group without mastopexy were compared with those of the group with AM. The satisfaction of patients and surgeons was documented using Likert scales.

RESULTS

A total of 206 breast augmentations were performed in n = 103 patients. The mean follow-up was 24.0 ± 4.3 months. Compared with augmentations without an indication for simultaneous mastopexy, the AM group had wider breast bases and larger preoperative cup sizes; p < 0.001. As a result, implants selected for AM had greater diameters and lower volumes (p < 0.05) and were associated with smaller projections; p < 0.001. The total revision rates after augmentations without (n = 51) and with combined mastopexy (n = 52) were 5.9 % and 19.2 % (p < 0.05), respectively. AM increased tissue-related revisions from 2.0 % to 13.4 % (p < 0.05) without having an impact on implant-related revisions (3.9 % vs. 5.8 %, p = 0.663). The overall incidence of capsular contracture was 1.9 %. Satisfaction levels were approximately equal in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to augmentations without mastopexy, wider breast bases and larger breast volumes before surgery lead to the selection of significantly different implant dimensions in AM. Nanotextured silicone implants are associated with low complication rates, while an increased risk for tissue-related revisions of the combined procedure remains. Further studies are necessary in order to evaluate possible advantages and disadvantages over established implants.

What is the Process for Breast Implant Manufacturing? Inside Eight Breast Implant Factories

BACKGROUND

With the recent association between breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, breast implants have become the focus of many warnings. Surgeons and health professionals are not involved in all the processes of the manufacturing and distribution of this product. Not all countries have breast implant factories that are easy for surgeons to visit and better understand the manufacturing process.

METHODS

A questionnaire about breast implant manufacturing and distribution was validated in consensus and form. Two plastic surgeons visited eight factories and administered the questionnaire in the presence of a photographer, who documented that the questionnaire was answered in the same way for all visits. Once the visitors finished obtaining the information (questionnaire responses and video recording), this information was validated by a different member of a safety committee in Mexico. For the observations to be considered valid, the information from the questionnaire and the video must be presented.

RESULTS

We visited eight factories: three in France (Sebbin, Arion and Eurosilicone), two in Costa Rica (Allergan and Motiva), one in Scotland (Nagor), one in Germany (Polytech) and one in Korea (Bellagel). In four factories (Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor and Sebbin), the information on the process for manufacturing an implant was observed and recorded (validated). The quality laboratory was visited, and video recording was performed in six factories (Bellagel, Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor, Polytech and Sebbin).

CONCLUSION

It was possible to observe and verify that most of the companies that distribute breast implants in Mexico perform their manufacturing processes according to ISO standards. A breast implant registry can help people further understand how BIA-ALCL will behave in the future and allow more tests to better understand this pathology.

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 .

Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and the Textured Breast Implant Crisis

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an uncommon T-cell, CD-30+/ALK lymphoma. Late (9 years) periprosthetic fluid (seroma) is the most common presentation (90% of the cases). A combination of textured breast implant, bacterial contamination, and genetic predisposition seems to be necessary for BIA-ALCL to occur. There are 35 million patients with implants in the world, and at the present moment, 573 cases of BIA-ALCL have been reported. The risk of developing BIA-ALCL in Australia varies from 1:2832 to 1:86,029, with texture grades 3 and 4 seeming to pose a higher risk than grades 2 and 1. NCCN has established guidelines for diagnosis and treatment, and early diagnosis is the key to cure. At an early stage and for the vast majority of patients, the treatment consists of capsulectomy and implant removal. However, at stages II to IV, a systemic treatment is warranted, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy (residual disease), and brentuximab vedotin. The majority of patients can be cured, and complete capsular removal is the most important factor. So far, 33 patients have died from BIA-ALCL worldwide, with deaths related to delay in diagnosis and treatment. Textured implants have been in the midst of the current implant crisis, and Biocell was recalled worldwide after the latest FDA update on the disease. At the present moment, no medical society or regulatory agency has recommended implant removal. It is about time that we start robust breast implant registries to determine risks. Besides, based on scientific criteria, we must consider all the benefits and risks associated with the available breast devices.Level of Evidence III 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.