Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A 5-year multicenter retrospective study on Motiva Ergonomix® breast implants: Minimizing complications and maximizing results

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

Abstract 

Background

The task of promoting patient safety and aesthetically pleasing results, without exceeding anatomical limitations or compromising surgical outcomes, is one of the biggest challenges plastic surgeons face today.

Methods

This is a multicenter, single-surgeon retrospective study evaluating the long-term safety and aesthetic results of Motiva Ergonomix® implants in 325 consecutive female recipients undergoing bilateral primary breast augmentation procedures, predominantly performed with a minimal incision approach between 2 and 3.5 cm. As a secondary benefit of the study, we aim to provide insight into modern patient needs and desires expressed during the pre-operative implant selection process, and data collected evaluating patient satisfaction rates using a pre-operative and post-operative Breast-Q questionnaire and a Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS).

Results

Between 2015 and 2019, six hundred and fifty Ergonomix® implants were implanted into 325 consecutive patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with a mean minimal incision length of 2.9 cm (range 2–3.5 cm). The mean follow-up time was 14 months with a range of 6 to 48 months. Over the 5 years, a total of 7 complications were reported among 325 patients with an overall complication rate of 2.15% and an overall reoperation rate of 1.23% (N = 2).

Conclusions

Ergonomix® implants can provide a favorable choice for balancing both safety and aesthetics in primary breast augmentation procedures.

Level of evidence: III, Risk/Prognostic Study

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
Graph 1
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Databank Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Statistics 2020. Published 2020. Accessed July 22, 2021. https://cdn.surgery.org/media/statistics/aestheticplasticsurgerynationaldatabank-2020stats.pdf

  2. Plastic Surgery Statistics | Global Plastic Surgery Statistics. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/

  3. Beekman WH, Hage JJ, Jorna LB, Mulder JW (1999) Augmentation mammaplasty: the story before the silicone bag prosthesis. Ann plast surg 43(4):446–451. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199910000-00019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coombs DM, Grover R, Prassinos A, Gurunluoglu R (2019) Breast augmentation surgery: Clinical considerations. Cleve Clin J Med 86(2):111–122

  5. Breast Augmentation - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf. Accessed December 17, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482206/

  6. Montemurro P, Cheema M, Hedén P (2018) Patients’ and surgeons’ perceptions of social media’s role in the decision making for primary aesthetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 38(10):1078–1084. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJY021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stillaert FBJL, Lannau B, van Landuyt K, Blondeel PN (2020) The prepectoral, hybrid breast reconstruction: the synergy of lipofilling and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 8(7):e2966. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002966

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yesantharao PS, Lee E, Khavanin N et al (2021) Thinking outside the black box: current perceptions on breast implant safety and utility. Plast Reconstr Surg 147(3):593–603. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown T (2013) Patient expectations after breast augmentation: the imperative to audit your sizing system. Aesth Plast Surg 37:1134–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0214-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sforza M, Hammond DC, Botti G et al (2019) Expert consensus on the use of a new bioengineered, cell-friendly, smooth surface breast implant. Aesthet Surg J 39(Suppl 2):S95–S102. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz054

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rigo MH, Piccinini PS, Sartori LDP, de Carvalho LAR, Uebel CO (2020) SMS—split muscle support: a reproducible approach for breast implant stabilization. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(3):698–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00266-019-01565-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huemer GM, Wenny R, Aitzetmüller MM, Duscher D (2018) Motiva ergonomix round silksurface silicone breast implants: outcome analysis of 100 primary breast augmentations over 3 years and technical considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(6):831e–842e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A et al (2018) 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 38(suppl_2):S62–S73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJX150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Quirós MC, Bolaños MC, Fassero JJ (2019) Six-year prospective outcomes of primary breast augmentation with nano surface implants. Aesthet Surg J. 39(5):495–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montemurro P, Tay VKS (2021) Transitioning from conventional textured to nanotextured breast implants: our early experience and modifications for optimal breast augmentation outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 41(2):189–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJAA169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. D’Onofrio C (2020) Subfascial breast augmentation with crossed fascial sling, under tumescent anaesthesia with or without sedation and lower periareolar access. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(5):1508–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00266-020-01723-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jh K (2021) Association of the BellaGel® breast implant scandal with the poly implant prothèse fraud: a review of literatures. JSUR Open Access 7(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.16966/2470-0991.230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma S (2016) The 21st century silicone breast implant. JSUR Open Access 2(4):1–2. https://doi.org/10.16966/2470-0991.E107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zeplin PH (2021) Minimal scar breast augmentation: experience with over 500 implants. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 53(2):144–148. https://doi.org/10.1055/A-1307-3917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma S (2016) The 21st century silicone breast implant. JSUR Open Access. 2(4):1–2. https://doi.org/10.16966/2470-0991.E107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MendonçaMunhoz A, Santanelli F, Pompeo D, De R (2017) Nanotechnology, nanosurfaces, and silicone gel breast implants: current aspects. Case Reports Plast Surg Hand Surg 4(1):99–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/23320885.2017.1407658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Doloff JC, Veiseh O, de Mezerville R, et al. (2021) The surface topography of silicone breast implants mediates the foreign body response in mice, rabbits, and humans. Nat Biomed Eng 2021, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00739-4

  23. Quirós MC, Bolaños MC, Fassero JJ (2019) Six-year prospective outcomes of primary breast augmentation with nano surface implants. Aesthet Surg J 39(5):495–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJY196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cappellano G, Ploner C, Lobenwein S et al (2018) Immunophenotypic characterization of human T cells after in vitro exposure to different silicone breast implant surfaces. PLoS ONE. 13(2):e0192108. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0192108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pontes GH, CarneiroFilho FSM, Vargas Guerrero LA et al (2021) reduced remodeling biomarkers tissue expression in nanotextured compared with polyurethane implants capsules: a study in rats. Aesthet Surg J. 41(6):NP64–NP683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJAA315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nam SY, Lee M, Shin BH et al (2019) Characterization of BellaGel smooth implant surfaces and correlation with capsular contracture. JBNB 10(04):196–211. https://doi.org/10.4236/JBNB.2019.104012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A et al (2018) 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 38:S62–S73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJX150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hallab NJ, Samelko L, Hammond D (2019) The inflammatory effects of breast implant particulate shedding: comparison with orthopedic implants. Aest Surg J 39(Supplement_1):S36–S48. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jewell ML, Bengtson BP, Smither K, Nuti G, Perry T (2019) Physical properties of silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 39(3):264–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJY103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast reconstr surg 113(7):1960–1965. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000122207.28773.56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwart's Principles of Surgery - McGraw Hill 11th edition

  32. Fanous N, Tawile C, Brousseau VJ (2008) Minimal inframammary incision for breast augmentation. Can J Plast Surg 16(1):14–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/229255030801600109

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Mohiuddin K, Swanson SJ (2013) Maximizing the benefit of minimally invasive surgery. J surg oncol 108(5):315–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSO.23398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Tiang KW, Nyandowe M (2017) A new era of minimally invasive surgery: progress and development of major technical innovations in general surgery over the last decade. Surg J ( N Y ) 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0037-1608651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Campbell CF, Small KH Jr, Adams WPA (2015) The inframammary fold ( IMF ) fixation suture : proactive control of the IMF in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2016(36):619–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjv178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kelly JD, Comstock B, Shauly O, Smartt JM Jr, Gould DJ (2022) Validation of ideal breast characteristics with breast augmentation patients. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 4:ojac010. https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojac010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No financial support or any facility has been received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Studi Moio, Naples, Italy

    Mariagrazia Moio

  2. Private Practice, Gisella Nele Body & Mind Center, Naples, Italy

    Gisella Nele

Authors
  1. Mariagrazia Moio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gisella Nele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisella Nele.

Ethics declarations

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study also to share and publish their photos.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

According to the Italian Law and due to the retrospective nature of this observational study, approval from the ethics committee was not required.

Conflict of interest

Mariagrazia Moio has been a KOL for Establishment Labs. Gisella Nele declares no conflict of interest to declare.

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

Moio, M., Nele, G. A 5-year multicenter retrospective study on Motiva Ergonomix® breast implants: Minimizing complications and maximizing results. Eur J Plast Surg 46, 1099–1111 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-023-02098-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-023-02098-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation