Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Smooth round silicone gel implants in retropectoral augmentation mammaplasty: any aesthetic outcome can be achieved without texturization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Due to risks of texturization, the use of textured breast implants has been diminishing worldwide and is expected to continue to decline. The crisis with textured devices raises the need to revisit the use of smooth round silicone gel (SRSG) implants and to discuss the results that can be achieved with this alternative. The article aims to exclusively analyze SRSG devices: the changes associated with implant profile and degrees of filling, how these changes correlate to certain aesthetic outcomes, and the predictability and stability of these results over time.

Methods

The experimental component of this study investigated the effect of gravity on various profiles of SRSG implants when their position was changed. The study’s clinical component was a retrospective analysis of primary retropectoral breast augmentation patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up after the procedure.

Results

In the experimental setting upon changing position, the anatomic conformation in higher profile devices was more visible compared with their lower profile counterparts. Clinical results of 92 augmented breasts (46 patients) with various types of SRSG implants revealed a full scope of aesthetic outcomes. Desired results were achieved even in challenging scenarios. Breast shape and upper pole contour were predictable with reliable and stable control over time. The overall complication rate was comparable to other breast implant studies.

Conclusions

With proper device selection and good surgical technique, any aesthetic outcome can be achieved in retropectoral placement while keeping also prioritizing patient safety. Moderate and moderate plus profile underfilled implants are recommended when anatomical results are intended.

Level of evidence: Level IV, Therapeutic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clemens MW, Jacobsen ED, Horwitz SM (2019) 2019 NCCN Consensus Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Aesthet Surg J 39(Suppl 1):S3–S13. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeCoster RC, Lynch EB, Bonaroti AR et al (2021) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: an evidence-based systematic review. Ann Surg 273(3):449–458. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. (ANSM) Andsdmedpds Le marquage CE des implants mammaires texture´s de la marque Allergan (Microcell et Biocell) n’apas e´te´ renouvele´ par l’organisme notifie´ GMED - Point d’information. https://ansm.sante.fr/actualites/le-marquage-ce-des-implants-mammaires-textures-de-la-marque-allergan-microcell-et-biocell-na-pas-ete-renouvele-par-lorganisme-notifie-gmed Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  4. Allergan: Biocell Safety Alert https://www.biocellinformation.com/~/link.aspx?_id=3CD4B20FD4464EF3AD041EB636E053F9&_z=z Accessed 18 Jun 2022

  5. Clemens MW, Knittel CR (2020) Commentary on: is banning texturized implants to prevent breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) a rational decision? A meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study. Aesthet Surg J 40(7):732–734. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heidekrueger PI, Sinno S, Hidalgo DA et al (2018) Current trends in breast augmentation: an international analysis. Aesthet Surg J 38(2):133–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mallucci P. Is There still a role for textured breast implants? Proceedings: The Aesthetic Meeting 2021; Miami Beach, FL; April 29-May 3, 2021

  8. Bronz G (2002) A comparison of naturally shaped and round implants. Aesthet Surg J 22(3):238–246. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2002.124759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman T, Davidovitch N, Scheflan M (2006) Comparative double blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants. Aesthet Surg J 26(5):530–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2006.08.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Ajam Y, Marsh DJ, Mohan AT et al (2015) Assessing the augmented breast: a blinded study comparing round and anatomical form-stable implants. Aesthet Surg J 35(3):273–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sju053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng F, Cen Y, Liu C et al (2019) Round versus anatomical implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(3):711–721. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamas RS (1999) The postoperative shape of round and teardrop saline-filled breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 19(5):369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rubi CG, Lozano JA, Pérez-Espadero A et al (2017) comparing round and anatomically shaped implants in augmentation mammaplasty: the experts’ ability to differentiate the type of implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(1):60–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Spear SL, Mardini S (2001) Alternative filler materials and new implant designs: what’s available and what’s on the horizon? Clin Plast Surg 28(3):435–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coroneos CJ, Selber JC, Offodile AC et al (2019) US FDA Breast implant postapproval studies: long-term outcomes in 99,993 patients. Ann Surg 269(1):30–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mark L, Jewell ML, Bengtson BP, Smither K et al (2019) Physical properties of silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 39(3):264–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tebbetts JB (1996) What is adequate fill? Implications in breast implant surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(7):1451–1454. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199606000-00022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oliveira ACP, Maino M, Zanin EM et al (2021) Breast implants follow-up: results of a cross-sectional study on patients submitted to mri breast examinations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 45(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01962-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nipshagen MD, Beekman WH, Esmé DL et al (2007) Anatomically shaped breast prosthesis in vivo: a change of dimension? Aesthetic Plast Surg 31(5):540–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-0025-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tebbetts JB (2000) Patient acceptance of adequately filled breast implants using the tilt test. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(1):139–147. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200007000-00027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jewell ML (2012) Silicone gel breast implants at 50: the state of the science. Aesthet Surg J 32(8):1031–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X12461649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahić AP, Grebić D, Čargonja P et al (2020) Silicone gel breast implants: past, present, and future. Acta Med Hist Adriat 18(1):165–176. https://doi.org/10.31952/amha.18.1.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Charalambous M, Daoud R, Karat I (2020) Technological advances in breast implants. In: Jackson MJ, Phoenix DA, Charalambous CP (eds) 2020: Ahmed W. Academic Press, Advances in Medical and Surgical Engineering. Elsevier Inc., pp 141–147

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lista F, Ahmad J (2013) Evidence-based medicine: augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(6):1684–1696. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a80880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yordanov YP (2020) Natural appearance and good control of the breast shape in retropectoral augmentation mammaplasty: achievable without texturization. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(5):1919–1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01750-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(4):1396–409. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200204010-00030. (discussion 1410-5)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP et al (2015) Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):263–272. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001474

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hall-Findlay EJ (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fad34d

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hidalgo DA, Sinno S (2016) Current trends and controversies in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(4):1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000481110.31939.e4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hidalgo DA (2015) Discussion: anatomical and round implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):273–275. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bi S, Liu R, Wu B et al (2020) Breast implants for mammaplasty: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple complications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(6):1988–1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01866-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Handel N (2011) Managing complications of augmentation mammoplasty. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast – principles and art, 3rd edn. LWW, Philadelphia, PA, pp 1447–1472

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pantelides N, Srinivasan J (2018) Rippling following breast augmentation or reconstruction: aetiology, emerging treatment options and a novel classification of severity. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42(4):980–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1117-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nahabedian MY (2019) Round form-stable breast implants: diagnosis and management of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(1S Utilizing a Spectrum of Cohesive Implants in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery):73S-81S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005953.

  35. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J et al (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(3):757–767. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000201457.00772.1d

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318205f41b

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Duncan DI (2008) Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesthet Surg J 21(1):81–84. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2001.113438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2013) Efficacy of acellular dermal matrices in revisionary aesthetic breast surgery: a 6-year experience. Aesthet Surg J 33(3):389–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X13478967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kolker AR, Collins MS (2015) Tuberous breast deformity: classification and treatment strategy for improving consistency in aesthetic correction. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(1):73–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meara JG, Kolker A, Bartlett G et al (2000) Tuberous breast deformity: principles and practice. Ann Plast Surg 45(6):607–611. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200045060-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author expresses his gratitude to Borislav Petrov for his assistance in preparation of the figures in accordance with the artwork instructions.

Funding

No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ASD Consult, 38, Ivan Evstratiev Geshov Blvd., 1612, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Yordan P. Yordanov

Authors
  1. Yordan P. Yordanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yordan P. Yordanov.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This is a retrospective descriptive clinical study which does not include any experimental techniques or devices; the identity of the patients is preserved. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Patient consent

The patients have given written informed consent for publication of their pictures and for eventual involvement in a study which is a standard part of the preoperative informed consent process in our clinic.

Conflict of interest

Yordan P. Yordanov declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yordanov, Y.P. Smooth round silicone gel implants in retropectoral augmentation mammaplasty: any aesthetic outcome can be achieved without texturization. Eur J Plast Surg 46, 377–386 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-022-02033-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-022-02033-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation