Breast Implant Selection: Consensus Recommendations Using a Modified Delphi Method

Decision making in breast implant selection for breast reconstruction: A mixed-method study among plastic surgeons

Background

Breast implants and the (dis)advantages of their characteristics (shape, filling, surface, and brand) have been studied extensively. When selecting a specific breast implant, a plastic surgeon makes a trade-off between the various (dis)advantages. However, the factors affecting the choice of their preferred breast implant have not been studied in detail.

Methods

This is a mixed-method study. First, five plastic surgeons were interviewed to identify factors that influence their choice of a breast implant in a reconstructive setting. Second, 42 plastic surgeons were asked to state their preferred implant, weigh the collected factors, and indicate when they would deviate from their preferred implant.

Results

The interviews produced a varied list of factors that influenced the choice of breast implant, including complication rates, marketing, economic, and logistic factors. The results from the survey showed variation in preferred implant and substantial variations in the weighing of these factors. The two most important factors were "study outcomes" and "brand reputation". Ninety percent of the respondents were willing to deviate from their preferred implant, with the patient's preference being the main indication to deviate.

Conclusions

The list of factors that influence the plastic surgeons' choice of a breast implant in a reconstructive setting is extensive and their weighing showed substantial variation. Implant choice was not based solely on scientific evidence. Brand reputation was valued highly, implying that media and marketing may have considerable influence. Therefore, patients must be informed extensively about all aspects of breast implants during shared decision making to obtain true informed consent.

Implant Size Selection on the Basis of Period, Parity, and Age: A 22-year Retrospective Analysis of 2591 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties

The size of implants can be selected objectively or subjectively. However, there is a lack of information on whether there is a change in the trend in implant size selection or whether the parity or the age can have an impact on the implant size used.

Methods

A retrospective study to analyze implant size selection following primary augmentation was performed. Data were divided into three groups. Group A had mammoplasties between 1999 and 2011 (group 1) and 2011 and 2022, respectively (group A2). Groups B and C were divided on the basis of age and the number of children.

Results

Group A1 included 1902 patients and group A2 included 689 patients. Group B included three subgroups: group B1 included 1345 patients who were 18-29 years old, group B2 included 1087 patients who were 30-45 years old, and group B3 had 127 patients who were 45 years or older. Group C included four subgroups: group C1 had 956 patients without children, group C2 had 422 patients who had one child, group C3 had 716 patients who had two children, and group C4 had 453 patients who had three or more children.

Conclusions

The data showed that there was a trend toward larger size implants, and patients with children had larger implants than nulliparous patients. There was no difference seen in implant size used when patients were compared on the basis of age.

Public Perception of Ideal Breast Shape

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in trends related to body-shaping procedures. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, nearly 300,000 breast augmentation procedures were conducted in 2019. Learning the ideal shape of a breast and which esthetics lead to public perception of the most attractive breast is beneficial to properly performing these procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to quantify the public's perception of attraction to breast shape by measuring public opinion for various esthetic elements of breast anatomy and linking this to various demographic factors.

METHODS

Survey responses were collected from 1000 users of Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect demographic data and ask users to rank preferences for randomized image panels of breast proportions.

RESULTS

960 responses were used for analysis. A majority of respondents were male (60%), with a plurality being 25 to 34 years old (49.3%). The most notable preferences between all groups were breast projection proportion and nipple direction, with preferences of 1.0 and frontal nipple direction, respectively. Breast width to shoulder width ratio also had a clear preference among the crowd, with 105% being the preferred percentage, and the 25 to 34 age group having a very strong preference for this.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors used a crowdsourcing survey technique with randomized image panels to analyze ideal breast preference using images of various anatomical traits of the female breast. It was concluded that crowdsourcing can be a favorable technique for learning ideal overall preferences for specific anatomy.

Four-Year Interim Results of the Safety of Augmentation Mammaplasty Using the Motiva Ergonomix™ Round SilkSurface: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The Motiva Ergonomix™ Round SilkSurface (Establishment Labs Holdings Inc., Alajuela, Costa Rica) is the fifth generation of a silicone gel-filled breast implant that is commercially available in Korea.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we describe 4-year interim results of the safety of augmentation mammaplasty using the Motiva Ergonomix™ Round SilkSurface in Korean women.

METHODS

In the current multicenter, retrospective study, we performed a retrospective review of medical records of a total of 1314 patients who received augmentation mammaplasty using the Motiva Ergonomix™ Round SilkSurface at our hospitals between September 1, 2016, and August 31, 2020. For safety assessment, we analyzed incidences of postoperative complications and Kaplan-Meier complication-free survival of the patients.

RESULTS

We included a total of 873 patients (1746 breasts, mean age = 32.18 ± 6.88 years) in the current study. There were a total of 111 cases (12.70%) of postoperative complications; these include 24 cases (2.70%) of early seroma, 18 cases (2.10%) of hematoma, 18 cases (2.10%) of capsular contracture, 17 cases (1.95%) of dissatisfaction with shape, 16 cases (1.83%) of dissatisfaction with size, 9 cases (1.03%) of asymmetry, 6 cases (0.70%) of infection and 3 cases (0.34%) of rippling. Moreover, time-to-events were estimated at 918.34 ± 36.22 days (95% CI 845.44-988.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we describe 4-year interim results of the safety of augmentation mammaplasty using the Motiva Ergonomix™ Round SilkSurface in Korean women in a non-manufacturer-sponsored study. But further large-scale, prospective, multicenter studies with a long period of follow-up are warranted to establish our results.

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 Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Ultrastructural features of the double capsulated connective tissue around silicone prostheses

The implantation of breast prostheses for both aesthetic and reconstructive purposes has been growing exponentially in the last 20 years. Safety and prosthesis lifespan are majorly debated issues in relation to the correlated long-term complications. Mainly the periprosthetic capsule that develops around the implant is often the cause of complications and particularly for macrotextured silicone breast implants. Some reports have tried to elucidate the mechanism by which macrotextured silicone implants undergo damage and cause double capsule formation. In this study, we investigated the morphological characteristics of double capsule of macrotextured implants surgically removed from patients. With the use of microscopy techniques, this work analyzed the newly formed tissue observed in the interaction between synthetic and biological surfaces.

Breast Augmentation Surgery: How Do We Do It? Results of a Joint Survey from European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current perceptions, preferences, and practice of plastic surgeons in Europe regarding breast implant surgery after the controversy on macrotextured implants and BIA-ALCL and the voluntary recall of all biocell implants.

METHODS

A survey comprising 15 questions about implant selection and postoperative routines associated with breast augmentation was sent to all society members of the EASAPS.

RESULTS

Out of 1473 correspondents, 416 completed the survey with response rate being 28.2%. Countries with less than ten respondents were not included in the analysis. A total of 359 respondents (24.4%) were included in the analysis. Twenty-one respondents (5.8%) had a clinical experience < 5 years, 43 (12%) had 5-10 years' experience, and 295 (82.2%) had > 10 years' experience. Regarding the type of implant, only 6.1% would use a macrotextured implant. Fourteen per cent of surgeons would recommend to change a biocell implant in any case, even without symptoms or problems (rupture, seroma, and capsular contracture), 99.7% would send the capsule for histopathological study (99.7%), 98.9% would perform bilateral implant replacement in case of a unilateral problem of rupture, contracture, or seroma, and 80.8% of respondents considered capsulectomy as a technique for managing capsular contracture degree III/IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusion is the heterogenicity of answers and practice, due to the lack of guidelines and scientific evidence on breast implants. Although 22 (6.1%) respondents would use a macrotextured implant (either round or anatomic), 71.6% of respondents considered that there is not enough information for removing macrotextured implants from the market and that they should be allowed to be used unrestrictedly or under close surveillance of the regulatory agencies.

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 .