Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Austrian Breast Implant Register: Recent Trends in Implant-Based Breast Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Breast
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Due to the fact that the number of breast implant surgeries for cosmetic and medical purposes is rising yearly, a discussion about the quality of service for both patients and physicians is more important than ever. To this end, we reviewed the Austrian Breast Implant Register with one specific question in mind: What are the trends?

Materials and Methods

In the statistical analysis of the Austrian Breast Implant Register, we were able to identify 13,112 registered breast implants between 2004 and 2012. The whole dataset was then divided into medical and cosmetic groups. We focused on device size, surface characteristics, filling material, device placement and incision site. All factors were considered for all examined years.

Results

In summary, the most used device had a textured surface (97 %) and silicone gel as the filling material (93 %). The mean size of implants for the cosmetic group was 240 cc, placement was submuscular (58 %) and the incision site was inframammary (67 %). In the medical group, the mean size was 250 cc. Yearly registrations had their peak in 2008 (1,898 registered devices); from this year on, registrations decreased annually. A slight trend away from subglandular placement in the cosmetic group was noted. Also, the usage of implants with polyurethane surface characteristics has increased since 2008. The smooth surface implants had a peak usage in 2006 and their usage decreased steadily from then on whereas the textured surface was steady over the years.

Discussion and Conclusion

Keeping the problems related to the quality of breast implants in mind, we could recommend an obligatory national register. Organisations of surgeons and governments should develop and establish these registers. Furthermore, an all-encompassing international register should be established by the European Union and the American FDA (Food and Drug Administration); this might be useful in comparing the individual country registers and also would help in delivering “evidence based” medicine in cosmetic and medical procedures.

Level of Evidence V

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bulstrode C (1996) Total hip replacement: the way forward. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 78:129–132

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wyse RK, Taylor KM (1999) The development of an international surgical registry: the ECSUR project. The European cardiac surgical registry. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg Off J Eur Assoc Cardio-Thorac Surg 16:2–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kolling C, Simmen BR, Labek G, Goldhahn J (2007) Key factors for a successful national arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1567–1573. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Dowd A (2012) Government considers a national implant register in review of cosmetic procedures. BMJ 345:e5574. doi:10.1136/bmj.e5574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Renner C, Neuhann-Lorenz C (2006) International breast implant registry: a user report. Aesthet Plast Surg 30:616–621. doi:10.1007/s00266-006-0067-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Henriksen TF, Hölmich LR, Friis S et al (2003) The danish registry for plastic surgery of the breast: establishment of a nationwide registry for prospective follow-up, quality assessment, and investigation of breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2182–2189. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000060111.19272.8D (discussion 2190–2191)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hakelius L, Ohlsén L (1992) A clinical comparison of the tendency to capsular contracture between smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 90:247–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE (2006) Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:2182–2190. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000218184.47372.d5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wong C-H, Samuel M, Tan B-K, Song C (2006) Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1224–1236. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000237013.50283.d2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Collin TW, Coady MSE (2006) Is pregnancy contraindicated following free TRAM breast reconstruction? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg JPRAS 59:556–559. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2005.11.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vázquez G, Pellón A (2007) Polyurethane-coated silicone gel breast implants used for 18 years. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:330–336. doi:10.1007/s00266-006-0207-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Handel N, Garcia ME, Wixtrom R (2013) Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1128–1137. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vazquez B, Given KS, Houston GC (1987) Breast augmentation: a review of subglandular and submuscular implantation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11:101–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Biggs TM, Yarish RS (1990) Augmentation mammaplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:368–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kulmala I, McLaughlin JK, Pakkanen M et al (2004) Local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Finland. Ann Plast Surg 53:413–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Hölmich LR et al (2005) Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg 54:343–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiener TC (2008) Relationship of incision choice to capsular contracture. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:303–306. doi:10.1007/s00266-007-9061-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD et al (2012) Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J Am Soc Aesthet Plast Surg 32:456–462. doi:10.1177/1090820X12444267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ et al (2013) A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:15–23. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cde

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chung AP, Sacchini V (2008) Nipple-sparing mastectomy: where are we now? Surg Oncol 17:261–266. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2008.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. De Alcantara Filho P, Capko D, Barry JM et al (2011) Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the memorial sloan-kettering cancer center experience. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3117–3122. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1974-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L et al (2012) Inverted-T skin-reducing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction using the submuscular–subfascial pocket. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:31–41. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182547d42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Blechman KM, Karp NS, Levovitz C et al (2013) The lateral inframammary fold incision for nipple-sparing mastectomy: outcomes from over 50 immediate implant-based breast reconstructions. Breast J 19:31–40. doi:10.1111/tbj.12043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. James PA, Mitchell G, Bogwitz M, Lindeman GJ (2013) The Angelina Jolie effect. Med J Aust 199:646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spiering M (2012) DGÄPC ermittelt Zahlen zur Brustvergrößerung in Deutschland. German Society for Aesthetic-Plastic Surgery, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  26. Petit F (2005) Breast implants in France. New regulations, and qualitative and quantitative study of breast implants sold between 1995 and 2004. Ann Chir Plast Esthét 50:685–693. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2005.07.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frédéric V, Aikaterini A (2012) Medical devices: European Commission asks for further scientific study and draws first lessons from the recent fraud on breast implants. In: europa.eu. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-96_en.htm. Accessed 29 Nov 2013

  28. Crouzet C, Gangloff D, Chaput B et al (2012) Outcome at 18 months after the recall of poly implant prosthesis. Experience of a cancer center. Ann Chir Plast Esthét 57:9–15. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2012.01.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Berry MG, Stanek JJ (2012) The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg JPRAS 65:697–704. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2012.02.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Chummun S, McLean NR (2013) Poly implant prothèse (PIP) breast implants: our experience. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 11:241–245. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2013.02.006

    Google Scholar 

  31. Khan UD (2013) Poly implant prothèse (PIP) incidence of device failure and capsular contracture: a retrospective comparative analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg 37:906–913. doi:10.1007/s00266-013-0157-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Quaba O, Quaba A (2013) PIP silicone breast implants: rupture rates based on the explantation of 676 implants in a single surgeon series. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg JPRAS 66:1182–1187. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zuckerman D, Booker N, Nagda S (2012) Public health implications of differences in U.S. and European Union regulatory policies for breast implants. Reprod Health Matters 20:102–111. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(12)40662-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 29, 8036, Graz, Austria

    Paul Wurzer, Thomas Rappl, Lars-Peter Kamolz, Stephan Spendel & Daryousch Parvizi

  2. Institute of Statistics, Graz University of Technology, Kopernikusgasse 24/III, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Herwig Friedl

  3. Schwarzl Clinic, Hauptstraße 140, 8301, Lassnitzhöhe, Austria

    Helmut Hoflehner

Authors
  1. Paul Wurzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Rappl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herwig Friedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars-Peter Kamolz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephan Spendel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Helmut Hoflehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daryousch Parvizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Wurzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wurzer, P., Rappl, T., Friedl, H. et al. The Austrian Breast Implant Register: Recent Trends in Implant-Based Breast Surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 38, 1109–1115 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0407-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0407-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation