Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.
Adult
Breast Implantation
/ adverse effects
Breast Implants
/ adverse effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ surgery
Cellulitis
/ epidemiology
Female
Humans
Mastectomy
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
/ statistics & numerical data
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Quality of Life
Surface Properties
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ statistics & numerical data
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
entrez:
27
10
2021
pubmed:
28
10
2021
medline:
20
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications. Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016). These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices. Therapeutic, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Therapeutic, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34705770
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008411
pii: 00006534-202111000-00004
pmc: PMC9237832
mid: NIHMS1815545
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
959-967Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure:Dr. Pusic is a codeveloper of the BREAST-Q, which is owned by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and receives a portion of the licensing fees (royalty payments) when the BREAST-Q is used in industry-sponsored clinical trials. Dr. Dayan is a consultant for Stryker. Dr. Mehrara is a consultant for PureTech Corporation. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf . Accessed April 7, 2020.
Clemens MW, Miranda RN. Coming of age: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma after 18 years of investigation. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42:605–613.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Allergan voluntarily recalls BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/allergan-voluntarily-recalls-biocellr-textured-breast-implants-and-tissue-expanders . Accessed April 7, 2020.
Carr LW, Roberts J, Potochny JD. How breast implant surface type is influenced by breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: A survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(Suppl 3):S208–S211.
Tandon VJ, DeLong MR, Ballard TN, et al. Evolving trends in textured implant use for cosmetic augmentation in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:1456–1461.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA requests Allergan voluntarily recall Natrelle BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders from the market to protect patients: FDA safety communication. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-requests-allergan-voluntarily-recall-natrelle-biocell-textured-breast-implants-and-tissue . Accessed April 7, 2020.
McGuire PA, Deva AK, Glicksman CA, Adams WP Jr, Haws MJ. Management of asymptomatic patients with textured surface breast implants. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum2019;1:ojz025.
Lapid O, Noels EC, Meijer SL. Pathologic findings in primary capsulectomy specimens: Analysis of 2531 patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:714–718.
Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:2182–2190.
Calobrace MB, Capizzi PJ. The biology and evolution of cohesive gel and shaped implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl):6S–11S.
Calobrace MB, Schwartz MR, Zeidler KR, Pittman TA, Cohen R, Stevens WG. Long-term safety of textured and smooth breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;38:38–48.
Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Hedén P. Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:876–881.
Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, et al. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35:145–155.
Somogyi RB, Brown MH. Outcomes in primary breast augmentation: A single surgeon’s review of 1539 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:87–97.
Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:597e–611e.
Mallucci P. Discussion: Intraoperative comparison of anatomical versus round implants in breast augmentation: A randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:599–600.
Adams WP Jr, Culbertson EJ, Deva AK, et al. Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: Experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:427–431.
Antony AK, McCarthy C, Disa JJ, Mehrara BJ. Bilateral implant breast reconstruction: Outcomes, predictors, and matched cohort analysis in 730 2-stage breast reconstructions over 10 years. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:625–630.
Shauly O, Gould DJ, Patel KM. Microtexture and the cell/biomaterial interface: A systematic review and meta-analysis of capsular contracture and prosthetic breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:603–614.
Hakelius L, Ohlsén L. A clinical comparison of the tendency to capsular contracture between smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;90:247–254.
Pollock H. Breast capsular contracture: A retrospective study of textured versus smooth silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;91:404–407.
Macadam SA, Ho AL, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: A comparison of shaped cohesive gel and round cohesive gel implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:431–441.
Agochukwu-Nwubah N, Boustany A, Wetzel M, et al. Anatomic implants in breast reconstruction: A comparison of outcomes and aesthetic results compared to smooth round silicone implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:NP322–NP330.
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;72:537–546.
Khavanin N, Clemens MW, Pusic AL, et al. Shaped versus round implants in breast reconstruction: A multi-institutional comparison of surgical and patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1063–1070.
Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Gibbons CJ. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: Minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:11e–20e.
Macadam SA, Ho AL, Cook EF Jr, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: Patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:761–771.
Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: A 10-year Sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(Sientra Shaped and Round Cohesive Gel Implants):20S–28S.
Pantelides NM, Srinivasan JR. Rippling following breast augmentation or reconstruction: Aetiology, emerging treatment options and a novel classification of severity. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42:980–985.
Sigalove S, Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Outcomes utilizing Inspira implants in revisionary reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(Utilizing a Spectrum of Cohesive Implants in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery):66S–72S.
Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D. Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: A comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:482–489.
Jones P, Mempin M, Hu H, et al. The functional influence of breast implant outer shell morphology on bacterial attachment and growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:837–849.