In search for the 'perfect' breast implant: are textured implants still indicated in today's breast augmentation practice?

Intraoperative Evaluation of Textured Anatomical Implant Rotation: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Textured implants were developed with the goal of reducing rates of capsular contracture and preventing implant malposition (eg, malrotation). Recent evidence has questioned whether textured implants are as resistant to malrotation as previously reported.

METHODS

Women presenting to a single health care system for removal of textured implants were prospectively enrolled in the study from September of 2019 to July of 2022. Patients who underwent removal of an anatomical, textured implant in the operating room were included in the study; whereas those who did not undergo implant removal, or were found to have a smooth implant, or a round, textured implant, were excluded. The degree of implant rotation on removal of the implant was measured intraoperatively. Information regarding implant-specific factors, patient demographics, clinical factors, and operative characteristics, was collected.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients (80 implants) were included in the study; 45% of implants were malrotated (rotated >30 degrees), and the median degree of rotation was 30 degrees. Having more than one previous revision of the breast pocket was predictive of implant rotation (42 degrees) on multivariate linear regression analysis. Patients who presented with a complaint of "aesthetic dissatisfaction" had 2.89 increased odds of having an implant rotated greater than 30 degrees.

CONCLUSION

The authors' study found a high rate of malrotation of textured shaped implants on explantation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation: A retrospective study of 1134 women

BACKGROUND

Implant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors.

METHOD

We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation.

RESULTS

In total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.

Evaluation of Different Breast Implant Shapes in the Same Patient: Is There Really a Difference between Round and Anatomical Implants?

Background

The choice of the right implant shape is one of the most frequent debates in cosmetic breast augmentation. In current literature, the question of whether there is a difference in the appearance of different implant shapes is still an argument of highly controversial discussion. The aim of the present work was, therefore, to analyze whether any difference exists in terms of aesthetic outcome between round and anatomical implants, and if they can be distinguished from each other in a like for like swap, making sure the evaluation was made in exactly similar conditions.

Methods

Fourteen consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentations received primarily an implant of a given volume, projection, and shape (round or anatomical) and then decided to undergo implant replacement to a different shape but maintaining the same volume and projection. At 12-months follow-up, standardized photographs were taken, blinded and randomized. They were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons and 10 nurses.

Results

All 20 observers could distinguish between round and anatomical shape in all 14 cases (100%), which was highly significant (P < 0.0001) for each observer.

Conclusions

The present data indicate that there is a clear difference between anatomical and round-shaped implants in terms of aesthetic appearance, when a comparison is properly performed. With the use of both round and anatomical implant shapes, aesthetically appealing results can be achieved in cosmetic breast augmentation. The right implant choice must be made, based on patients' anatomy and desires.

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.