Comparing Round and Anatomically Shaped Implants in Augmentation Mammaplasty: The Experts’ Ability to Differentiate the Type of Implant

Measuring Outcomes in Aesthetic Surgery by Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons

SUMMARY

Aesthetic surgery is a visual specialty in which plastic surgeons and patients work together to enhance or restore facial and body harmony. The field of aesthetic surgery is advanced through descriptive technical procedures and outcomes research. With increasing competition in cosmetic medicine, aesthetic surgery stands to benefit from an evidence-based approach to document the high standards of care from board-certified plastic surgeons. In this article, the authors highlight challenges, current objective and subjective outcomes, and a path forward.

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.

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The choice of implant shape (anatomic or round) is one of the most critical issues for breast augmentation. Determining whether there are differences in the postoperative breast morphology of the 2 implants is pivotal for surgical planning. This issue has been controversial and lacking in evidence. The aim of this study was to provide reference for implant selection by comparing breast morphology after dual-plane augmentation with anatomic and round implants using 3-dimensional scanning technology.

METHODS

Patients with implant volume less than 300 mL who underwent transaxillary dual-plane augmentation were included in this study and were grouped according to implant shape. Three-dimensional scans were performed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative breast height (BH), breast width (BW), BH of upper pole (BHUP), BH of lower pole (BHLP), breast projection (BP), BP of upper pole (BPUP), and BP of lower pole (BPLP) were measured separately, resulting in corresponding ratios (BH/BW, BHUP/BHLP, BP/BH, BPUP/BPLP). Breast volume, and the volumes of each pole (breast volume of upper pole [BVUP], breast volume of lower pole [BVLP]) and its ratio (BVUP/BVLP) were calculated. Correlation and regression analysis on the influencing factors of breast volume were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with anatomic implants and 26 with round implants were enrolled in this study. The mean volumes of anatomic and round implants were 260.5 ± 26.7 and 267.9 ± 21.7 mL (P = 0.192). The ratios of BH/BW in the 2 groups were 1.39 ± 0.12 and 1.37 ± 0.19, respectively (P = 0.582). The BHUP/BHLP values of 2 groups were 1.35 ± 0.22 and 1.41 ± 0.25 (P = 0.160). Two sets of BPUP/BPLP were 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.73 ± 0.17 (P = 0.133). The ratios of BP/BH in the 2 groups were 0.39 ± 0.08 and 0.39 ± 0.06 (P = 0.830). The BVUP/BVLP ratios for both groups were 0.75 ± 0.11 and 0.77 ± 0.12 (P = 0.287). There was a volume loss rate of 13.3% ± 3.9% and 13.9% ± 5% (P = 0.489). The postoperative volume showed a positive correlation with both the preoperative volume and the implant volume.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast dysplasia undergoing transaxillary dual-plane augmentation with anatomic or round implants less than 300 mL, the difference in postoperative breast morphology is not obvious. Using these 2 shapes of implants results in a similar degree of volume loss.

Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth

Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast implants on inter-landmark distances and on changes of the nipple position was assessed. Methods: This interventional prospective study was carried out on 10 female patients after collecting informed consent. 3D scans of the native and augmented breasts were performed intraoperatively with small, medium, and large sizes of both anatomical and round implants, resulting in a total of n = 130 single breast scans. These scans were analyzed for topographic shift quantification, nipple migration, and inter-landmark distances of the breast. Results: Implant size, but not implant shape leads to significant topographic shifts of the breast (p < 0.001 and p = 0.900, respectively). Both round and anatomical implants lead to a significantly higher volumetric increase in the upper quadrants compared to the lower quadrants (p < 0.001). Nipple migration into the superomedial quadrant was seen in about 90% of augmentations. No evident differences in inter-landmark distances were observed when round and anatomical implants of different sizes were compared. Conclusions: Implant size rather than shape influences the postoperative aesthetic results. No significant difference in topographic shift was found comparing round and anatomical implants, suggesting that both implant shapes result in comparable aesthetic outcomes.

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

The popularity of breast augmentation procedure has driven research and debate as to whether any given implant characteristic offers a functional advantage. One such debate exists about the role of surface texturing. In the aftermath of the recent withdrawal of aggressively textured surfaces we would like to summarize the first author's experience of nearly 1500 primary aesthetic breast augmentations with different surfaces and offer our thoughts on this topic. All consecutive primary breast augmentations operated by the first author from January 2010 to June 2019 were included. All patients had silicone implants inserted via inframammary incision. Of all the operated cases, 1029 consecutive female patients had at least 6 months' follow-up (mean 15.1 months). Their mean age was 31.2 years, mean BMI 20.8 kg/m² and mean implant volume was 311 cc. 997(96.9%) patients had dual plane and 32(3.1%) had sub-glandular implant placement. In total 113 patients (11.0%) developed a complication. This represented 15.1% of those with round and 10.0% of anatomical shape (or 10.6% of textured and 14.5% of smooth surface implants). As clinicians, we like patients to receive all the advantages of an implant but not be exposed to any risks. However, in reality, such a 'perfect implant' still does not exist. New literature continues to shed light on this trade-off between an implant's perceived utility and its complications profile. We hope that the search for an alternative technology, with more beneficial surface characteristics and less drawbacks, continues.

A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

BACKGROUND

Dual-plane breast augmentation is a popular cosmetic procedure. However, objective evaluations on the effects of dual-plane breast augmentation on breast morphology are lacking. This study evaluated the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane anatomic implant augmentation with a periareolar incision via a Vectra 3-dimensional (3D) scanning technique.

METHODS

The dynamic changes in linear distance, breast projection, nipple position, and breast volume and surface over time (preoperatively; 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery) were analyzed in 21 patients with the Vectra 3D scanning technique. In another group of 65 patients, the influence of the implant parameters and tissue characteristics of the patients on breast morphological changes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The breast measurements changed significantly up to 6 months postoperatively and remained stable thereafter. The inframammary fold dropped by 0.8 cm at 1 month postoperatively and by 0.5 cm in the following 11 months. The preoperative implant volume and a lower pole skin elasticity lead to an increase in the nipple-to-inframammary fold distance. Compared with the expected values, the final volume was 10.9% smaller, and the projection was 25% smaller. Both the reduced volume and projection were correlated with the implant parameters and preoperative values. The nipple level was slightly elevated by approximately 0.8 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides objective information regarding the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane breast augmentation. These information may help to further understand the operation effects of dual-plane breast augmentation and to guide medical practice.

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 .

The Use of Anatomic Implants in Aesthetic Breast Surgery

Anatomic implants were introduced in the late 1980s, gaining popularity through the 1990s and beyond. The moratorium on silicone meant that the use of theses devices was less diffuse in the US and has remained so. Fifth-generation devices had improved form stability with more aggressive texturization to enhance soft tissue interaction. The ability to vary height, width and projection independently creates much versatility in their use for complex anatomical situations producing natural results. The impact of BIA-ALCL has had a significant impact on their use.

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. 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.

Round versus Anatomical Implants in Primary Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Choosing implant shape (round or anatomical) is one of the most essential yet controversial decisions in cosmetic breast augmentation. Many surgeons choose implant shape based on personal experience or expert opinion. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the aesthetic effect between anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies that compared anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation. Primary outcomes were postoperative aesthetic effect and correct identification rate of implant shape. Random effects models were used to obtain pooled standardized mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

One randomized comparative and four observational comparative studies met the inclusion criteria. No aesthetic superiority was found in the anatomical implant group with regard to overall appearance (standardized mean difference, 0.06; 95 percent CI, -0.40 to 0.53), naturalness (standardized mean difference, 0.18; 95 percent CI, -1.51 to 1.15), projection, upper pole contour, and lower pole contour. Pooled correct identification rate of implant shape by plastic surgeons was 52 percent (95 percent CI, 0.46 to 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, anatomical implants do not seem to have an aesthetic superiority compared to round implants. Plastic surgeons seemed to be unable to accurately differentiate the two implant shapes in vivo. Further studies should focus on identifying the specific indications for the use of anatomical implants.

Evaluation of anatomical and round breast implant aesthetics and preferences in Dutch young lay and plastic surgeon cohort

BACKGROUND

Literature remains inconclusive on the attractiveness and natural aspect of anatomical breast implants, and thus far, studies have failed to demonstrate the visible difference in implants that are in practice compared to those that are round. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) whether lay and professional participants can distinguish between breasts augmented with either round or anatomical breast implants and (2) their opinion with regard to naturalness and attractiveness of these augmented breasts.

METHODS

Twenty breast augmentations (10 anatomical and 10 round implants), each depicted by two postoperative pictures, were scored by 100 lay participants and 15 plastic surgeons. Implant volume ranged from 275 to 400 g. Ptotic or malformed breasts were excluded. Finally, they had to score the most natural, unnatural, attractive, and unattractive breast shapes on a schematic depiction of breast types with varying upper poles.

RESULTS

The rate of correct implant identifications was 74.0% (1480/2000 observations, p < 0.001) in the lay and 67.3% (202/300 observations, p < 0.001) in the surgeon cohort. Breasts with anatomical implants were rated as significantly more natural (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) and more attractive (3.1 ± 1.0 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001 and 3.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001, respectively) versus round implants by both lay participants and surgeons. Participants preferred breasts with a neutral or slightly negative upper pole contour.

CONCLUSION

Participants were able to distinguish between the results achieved with either anatomical or round textured Allergan breast implants and found augmented breasts with the anatomical implants more natural and attractive.

Current Trends in Breast Augmentation: An International Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation surgery remains the most frequently performed aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. However, many variations exist regarding preoperative planning, surgical management, and postoperative care.

OBJECTIVES

The goal was to evaluate current trends and practices in breast augmentation, with a focus on international variability.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to over 5000 active breast surgeons in 44 countries worldwide. The survey inquired about current controversies, new technologies, common practices, secondary procedures, and surgeon demographics. The findings and variations were evaluated and correlated to evidence-based literature.

RESULTS

There were a total 628 respondents equaling a response rate of approximately 18%. While certain approaches and common practices prevail also on an international basis, there exist several geographic controversies. For example, while almost fifty percent of surgeons in the United States and Latin America never use anatomically shaped implants, in Europe and Oceania most surgeons use them. Similarly, in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, over 80% of surgeons use silicone implants only, whereas in the United States only 20% use them - meanwhile US surgeons use the largest implants (78% > 300 cc). Internationally dominant practice preferences include preoperative sizing with silicone implants, as well as the use of inframammary incisions and partial submuscular pockets.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist when comparing most common surgical breast augmentation approaches on an international basis. While certain techniques seem to be universal standards, there still remain several controversies. Further standardizing this most common aesthetic surgical procedure according to evidence-based guidelines will help to improve outcomes.

Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape: A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4