Breast Implant Engineering and Performance:

Breast Morphological Changes after Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation with Smooth Round Implants: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most performed cosmetic surgery in the world. Although smooth round implants are widely used, the trend in breast morphology change after dual-plane augmentation with such implants remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed the issue with the support of 3D scanning technology, which may help provide an objective basis for the evaluation of postoperative outcomes and the determination of follow-up time points.

METHODS

Patients undergoing dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants were prospectively included in this study. The variation trend of postoperative breast morphology was analyzed by measuring the specified linear distance, body surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume at different follow-up time points (1st month, post-1M; 3rd month, post-3M; 6th month, post-6M; 12th month, post-12M).

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients were included in this study. During the postoperative follow-up period, breast height prolonged while interval of the medial border gradually widened. Breast width was maintained without significant alterations from post-1M. The N-MBB lengthened with shortening of the N-LBB, meanwhile the N-IMF was prolonged by 0.6 cm. Breast volume was gradually reduced with the decrease in breast projection. The position of the nipple gradually shifted laterally, superiorly, and posteriorly after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between the linear distance at post-3M and post-12M, while the surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume tended to be stable at post-6M.

CONCLUSIONS

After dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants, the base contour of the breast shifted outwards and downwards, and stabilized after 3 months. The remaining breast morphological parameters reached a relative steady state by post-6M, which could be regarded as the time point for objective evaluation of postoperative effect.

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 .

Prospective Study of Saline versus Silicone Gel Implants for Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

Background

Silicone gel implants are regarded as esthetically superior to saline implants, offering a more natural consistency. They are also considered less susceptible to rippling. However, objective measurements and patient-reported outcome studies are lacking. Similarly, minimal data are available quantitating animation deformity.

Methods

A 3-year prospective study was undertaken among 223 women undergoing primary subpectoral breast augmentation using either saline (n = 145) or silicone gel (n = 78) implants. Photographs obtained included frontal views with the patient flexing the pectoral muscles. Images were matched, and vertical differences in nipple position were measured. Breast implants were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound to detect any ripples or folds at least 3 months after surgery. Outcome surveys were administered. Statistical analysis included the χ² test, point-biserial correlations, and a power analysis.

Results

Respondents reported visible rippling in 18% of women and palpable rippling in 32% of patients, with no significant difference between women treated with saline and silicone gel implants. Ripples were detected on ultrasound scans in 24% of women with saline implants and in 27% of women with silicone gel implants (difference not significant). Ripples were more common in women with lower body mass indices. Fifty percent of patients demonstrated nipple displacement <1 cm on animation. Nipple displacement occurred either up or down with equal frequency and a mean overall nipple displacement of zero.

Conclusions

Saline and silicone breast implants produce similar degrees of rippling, as determined on outcome surveys and ultrasound examination. Animation deformities tend to be minor and well-tolerated.

Device-Specific Findings of Imprinted-Texture Breast Implants: Characteristics, Risks, and Benefits

BACKGROUND

The relative risks and benefits of various textured breast implants are the focus of considerable discussion. Studies have suggested different risk-benefit profiles for different implant surface topographies.

OBJECTIVES

The study aim was to provide device-specific, quantitative information on Mentor's imprinted Siltex Textured breast implants with respect to textured surface characteristics and ISO 14607 classification, risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and risk-reduction benefits relative to smooth implants.

METHODS

Surface metrology was performed. Data for smooth and Siltex implants from the prospective MemoryGel Core Study were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis for the most frequently occurring postoperative complications in augmentation and reconstruction leading to subsequent reoperation.

RESULTS

The overall average surface roughness for Siltex MemoryGel and MemoryShape implants was 29.5 and 36.1 µm, respectively. A statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation in patients with Siltex compared with smooth devices over 10 years was observed for both capsular contracture in subglandular primary augmentation patients (4.21% vs 19.84%) and for asymmetry in primary reconstruction patients (3.88% vs 11.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surface analysis demonstrated that Siltex implants fall within the ISO 14607 category of "microtexture" breast implants. These devices exhibited a rare risk of BIA-ALCL (0.0012%) based on the most extensive data available. Relative to smooth implants, these Siltex devices provided risk-reduction benefits for the most common reason of reoperation in patients who underwent primary augmentation (capsular contracture) or primary reconstruction (asymmetry) in the Core Study. These findings provide valuable risk-benefit information for surgeons and their patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2