PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2023; 50(02): 160-165
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760405
Breast/Trunk
Original Article

A Comparison of Smooth and Microtextured Breast Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Joo Hyuck Lee 
1   KIES-U Plastic Surgery Clinic, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Jae Hyuk Jang 
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Kyung Hee Min 
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
› Institutsangaben
Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background The number of cosmetic and reconstructive surgeries that use breast implants is increasing in Korea. Recently, it has been reported that breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is related to textured breast implants, and interest in classification according to the texture of breast implants is increasing. However, there is currently no clear and unified classification. In particular, the definition of “microtextured” is highly varied. In this study, we retrospectively investigated and analyzed the clinical outcomes of smooth and microtextured breast implants.

Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent breast augmentation surgery with smooth and microtextured silicone gel implants between January 2016 and July 2020 was performed. We retrospectively analyzed implant manufacturer, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, incision location, implant size, follow-up period, complications, and reoperation rate.

Results A total of 266 patients underwent breast augmentation surgery, of which 181 used smooth silicone gel implants and 85 used microtextured silicone gel implants. Age, BMI, smoking status, implant size, and follow-up period were not significantly different between the two groups. Similarly, complications and reoperation rates were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion It is important to provide information regarding the clinical risks and benefits of breast implants to surgeons and patients through a clear and unified classification according to the texture of the breast implant.

Keywords

breast implants - mammaplasty - complications

Note

This article was presented at PRS on November 12-14, 2021.


Author Contributions

J.H.L.: Conceptualization, data curation, supervision; J.H.J.: Data curation, methodology, writing–original draft; K.H.M: conceptualization, data curation, writing–original draft, writing–review & editing.


Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nowon Eulji Medical Center (IRB No. EMCIRB 2022-03-013) and performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement of informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 01. April 2022

Angenommen: 30. November 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. März 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Collett DJ, Rakhorst H, Lennox P, Magnusson M, Cooter R, Deva AK. Current risk estimate of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in textured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (3S A Review of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma): 30S-40S
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kim IK, Hong KY, Lee CK. et al. Analysis of the molecular signature of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in an Asian patient. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (05) NP214-NP222
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Wixtrom RN, Garadi V, Leopold J, Canady JW. Device-specific findings of imprinted-textured breast implants: characteristics, risks, and benefits. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (02) 167-173
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Hedén P. Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34 (06) 876-881
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (06) 709-717
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wong CH, Samuel M, Tan BK, Song C. Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (05) 1224-1236
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB. et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (05) 1115-1123
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jewell ML, Jewell JL. A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2010; 30 (01) 51-65
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hall-Findlay EJ. Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 56-66
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Maxwell GP, Brown MH, Oefelein MG, Kaplan HM, Hedén P. Clinical considerations regarding the risks and benefits of textured surface implants and double capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (02) 593-595
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA. et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood 2016; 127 (20) 2375-2390
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR. et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (03) 695-705
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Magnusson M, Beath K, Cooter R. et al. The epidemiology of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand confirms the highest risk for grade 4 surface breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (05) 1285-1292
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Barr S, Hill EW, Bayat A. Functional biocompatibility testing of silicone breast implants and a novel classification system based on surface roughness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 75: 75-81
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Valencia-Lazcano AA, Alonso-Rasgado T, Bayat A. Characterisation of breast implant surfaces and correlation with fibroblast adhesion. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013; 21: 133-148
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Clemens MW. Discussion: the epidemiology of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand confirms the highest risk for grade 4 surface breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (05) 1295-1297
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Cronin TD, Brauer RO. Augmentation mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am 1971; 51 (02) 441-452
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Poeppl N, Schreml S, Lichtenegger F, Lenich A, Eisenmann-Klein M, Prantl L. Does the surface structure of implants have an impact on the formation of a capsular contracture?. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31 (02) 133-139
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cash TF, Duel LA, Perkins LL. Women's psychosocial outcomes of breast augmentation with silicone gel-filled implants: a 2-year prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (06) 2112-2121 , discussion 2122–2123
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Brohim RM, Foresman PA, Hildebrandt PK, Rodeheaver GT. Early tissue reaction to textured breast implant surfaces. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 28 (04) 354-362
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Buonomo OC, Morando L, Materazzo M. et al. Comparison of round smooth and shaped micro-textured implants in terms of quality of life and aesthetic outcomes in women undergoing breast reconstruction: a single-centre prospective study. Updates Surg 2020; 72 (02) 537-546
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A. et al. Preliminary 3-year evaluation of experience with SilkSurface and VelvetSurface Motiva silicone breast implants: a single-center experience with 5813 consecutive breast augmentation cases. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (suppl_2): S62-S73
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Han S, Kim R, Kim TS. et al. A preliminary retrospective study to assess the short-term safety of traditional smooth or microtextured silicone gel-filled breast implants in Korea. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57 (12) 1370
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Tanner B. Low rate of capsular contracture in a series of 214 consecutive primary and revision breast augmentations using microtextured implants. JPRAS Open 2017; 15: 66-73
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar