Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers

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

Abstract

Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers.

Methods

Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer.

Results

Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (p < 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell® texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands.

Conclusions

Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell® texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation.

No Level Assigned

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(7):2182–2190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31(6):697–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Poeppl N, Schreml S, Lichtenegger F, Lenich A, Eisenmann-Klein M, Prantl L (2007) Does the surface structure of implants have an impact on the formation of a capsular contracture? Aesthetic Plast Surg 31(2):133–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hall-Findlay EJ (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):56–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mazzocchi M, Dessy LA, Carlesimo B, Marchetti F, Scuderi N (2010) Late seroma formation after breast surgery with textured silicone implants: a problem worth bearing in mind. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(4):176e–177e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colville RJI, McLean NR, Cross PA (2003) Double capsule or capsule within a capsule: is there a difference? Br J Plast Surg 56(7):724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR, Pinter-Brown L, House-Lightner SR, Andersen JS et al (2015) Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):695–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mazzocchi M, Dessy LA, Corrias F, Scuderi N (2012) A clinical study of late seroma in breast implantation surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(1):97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santanelli di Pompeo F, Laporta R, Sorotos M, Di Napoli A, Giovagnoli MR, Cox MC et al (2015) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: proposal for a monitoring protocol. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):144e–151e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Héden P (2011) Breast augmentation with anatomic, high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants (European Experience). In: Spear S (ed) Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1322–1345

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Supplement):35S–45S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(4):1396–1409 discussion 1410–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 105(6):2202–2216discussion 2217–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heimann T, Meinzer H-P (2009) Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation: a review. Med Image Anal 13(4):543–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage. 31(3):1116–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kinney BM, Jeffers LLC, Ratliff GE, Carlisle DA (2014) Silicone gel breast implants: science and testing. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:47S–56S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Paek LS, Tétreault-Paquin JO, St-Jacques S, Nelea M, Danino MA (2013) Le microscope électronique à balayage environnemental est-il un outil pertinent pour l’analyse des capsules périprothétiques mammaires ? Ann Chir Plast Esthét. 58(3):201–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barr S, Hill E, Bayat A (2009) Current implant surface technology: an examination of their nanostructure and their influence on fibroblast alignment and biocompatibility. Eplasty. 9:e22

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S, Rocher F, Blanchet-Bardon C, Revol M et al (2001) Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(7):2047–2052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Danino A, Rocher F, Blanchet-Bardon C, Revol M, Servant JM (2001) A scanning electron microscopy study of the surface of porous-textured breast implants and their capsules. Description of the “velcro” effect of porous-textured breast prostheses. Ann Chir Plast Esthét. 46(1):23–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Giot J-P, Paek LS, Nizard N, El-Diwany M, Gaboury LA, Nelea M et al (2015) The double capsules in macro-textured breast implants. Biomaterials 23(67):65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hedén P, Jernbeck J, Hober M (2001) Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 28(3):531–552

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hedén P, Boné B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2006) Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(6):1281–1287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bobyn JD, Wilson GJ, MacGregor DC, Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC (1982) Effect of pore size on the peel strength of attachment of fibrous tissue to porous-surfaced implants. J Biomed Mater Res 16(5):571–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valencia-Lazcano AA, Alonso-Rasgado T, Bayat A (2013) Characterisation of breast implant surfaces and correlation with fibroblast adhesion. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 21:133–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2014) The Evolution of Breast Implants: Plast Reconstr Surg. 134:12S–17S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brohim RM, Foresman PA, Hildebrandt PK, Rodeheaver GT (1992) Early tissue reaction to textured breast implant surfaces. Ann Plast Surg 28(4):354–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abramo AC, De Oliveira VR, Ledo-Silva MC, De Oliveira EL (2010) How texture-inducing contraction vectors affect the fibrous capsule shrinkage around breasts implants? Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(5):555–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA (2012) Mentor Contour Profile Gel Implants: clinical Outcomes at 6 Years. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(6):1381–1391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Hedén P (2014) Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthetic Surg J Am Soc Aesthetic Plast Surg. 34(6):876–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Derby BM, Codner MA (2015) Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data update and review. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(1):113–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sampaio Góes JC (2010) Breast implant stability in the subfascial plane and the new shaped silicone gel breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(1):23–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP (2012) Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthetic Surg J Am Soc Aesthetic Plast Surg. 32(6):709–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Góes JCS, Landecker A (2003) Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 27(3):178–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Macadam SA, Clugston PA, Germann ET (2004) Retrospective case review of capsular contracture after two-stage breast reconstruction: is colonization of the tissue expander pocket associated with subsequent implant capsular contracture? Ann Plast Surg 53(5):420–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu X, Zhou L, Pan F, Gao Y, Yuan X, Fan D (2015) Comparison of the postoperative incidence rate of capsular contracture among different breast implants: a cumulative meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(2):e0116071

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wiener TC (2008) Relationship of incision choice to capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32(2):303–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, Hill LM, Spear SL (2012) Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Surg J Am Soc Aesthetic Plast Surg. 32(4):456–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ben Amar M, Wu M, Trejo M, Atlan M (2015) Morpho-elasticity of inflammatory fibrosis: the case of capsular contracture. J R Soc Interface R Soc. 201:12

    Google Scholar 

  41. Calobrace MB, Capizzi PJ (2014) The Biology and Evolution of Cohesive Gel and Shaped Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 134:6S–11S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nipshagen MD, Beekman WH, Esmé DL, de Becker J (2007) Anatomically shaped breast prosthesis in vivo: a change of dimension? Aesthetic Plast Surg 31(5):540–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tebbetts JB (2000) Patient acceptance of adequately filled breast implants using the tilt test. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(1):139–147 discussion 148–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Per Hedén is a regular consultant for ALLERGAN for breast and face. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aesthetic Plastic Reconstructive Unit/CHU TENON PARIS –APHP, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, France

    Michael Atlan

  2. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, UPMC PARIS VI, 91 boulevard de l’hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Michael Atlan

  3. Institut Universitaire du Cancer, UPMC, 91 boulevard de l’hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Michael Atlan

  4. Laboratoire d’automatique, de mécanique et d’informatique industrielles et humaines, Valenciennes, France

    Maxence Bigerelle

  5. Laboratoire ERRMECe, EA 1391, 95302, Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France

    Véronique Larreta-garde & Mathilde Hindié

  6. Akademikliniken, Storängsvägen 10, 11542, Stockholm, Sweden

    Per Hedén

Authors
  1. Michael Atlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxence Bigerelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Véronique Larreta-garde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mathilde Hindié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Per Hedén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Atlan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atlan, M., Bigerelle, M., Larreta-garde, V. et al. Characterization of Breast Implant Surfaces, Shapes, and Biomechanics: A Comparison of High Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Textured Silicone, Breast Implants from Three Different Manufacturers. Aesth Plast Surg 40, 89–97 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0603-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation