Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Joo Hyuck Lee (KIES-U Plastic Surgery Clinic) ;
  • Jae Hyuk Jang (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University) ;
  • Kyung Hee Min (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University)
  • Received : 2022.04.01
  • Accepted : 2022.11.30
  • Published : 2023.03.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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

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 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005567
  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 https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa398
  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
  4. Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Heden P. Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J 2014;34(06):876-881 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X14538635
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X12452423
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000237013.50283.d2
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000435317.76381.68
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X09360700
  9. Hall-Findlay EJ. Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(01):56-66 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fad34d
  10. Maxwell GP, Brown MH, Oefelein MG, Kaplan HM, Heden P. Clinical considerations regarding the risks and benefits of textured surface implants and double capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128(02):593-595 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821eee8c
  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 https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-01-643569
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001033
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005500
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.030
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.005
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005588
  17. Cronin TD, Brauer RO. Augmentation mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am 1971;51(02):441-452 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(16)39388-4
  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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0091-y
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200205000-00049
  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 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199204000-00010
  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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00721-w
  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 https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx150
  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
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2017.10.007