Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape

A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation

Paolo Montemurro, Mubashir Cheema, Per Hedén, Mouchammed Agko, Alessandro Quattrini Li, Stefano Avvedimento

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.

Objectives: We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.

Methods: A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.

Results: Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.

Conclusions: A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.

Level of Evidence 4:

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-261
Number of pages8
JournalAesthetic Surgery Journal
Volume38
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 15 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fear
Breast
Breast Implants
Surgeons
Silicones
Consensus
Equipment and Supplies

Cite this

Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape : A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation. / Montemurro, Paolo; Cheema, Mubashir; Hedén, Per; Agko, Mouchammed; Quattrini Li, Alessandro; Avvedimento, Stefano.

In: Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, 15.02.2018, p. 254-261.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montemurro, Paolo ; Cheema, Mubashir ; Hedén, Per ; Agko, Mouchammed ; Quattrini Li, Alessandro ; Avvedimento, Stefano. / Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape : A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation. In: Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2018 ; Vol. 38, No. 3. pp. 254-261.
@article{fed5210b1e804eb68c5d65443051e552,
title = "Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape: A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation",
abstract = "Background: Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.Objectives: We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.Methods: A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.Results: Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3{\%}) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7{\%}) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9{\%} (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0{\%} (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.Conclusions: A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.Level of Evidence 4:",
author = "Paolo Montemurro and Mubashir Cheema and Per Hed{\'e}n and Mouchammed Agko and {Quattrini Li}, Alessandro and Stefano Avvedimento",
note = "{\circledC} 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1093/asj/sjx145",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "254--261",
journal = "Aesthetic Surgery Journal",
issn = "1090-820X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Not Fear an Implant's Shape

T2 - A Single Surgeon's Experience of Over 1200 Round and Shaped Textured Implants in Primary Breast Augmentation

AU - Montemurro, Paolo

AU - Cheema, Mubashir

AU - Hedén, Per

AU - Agko, Mouchammed

AU - Quattrini Li, Alessandro

AU - Avvedimento, Stefano

N1 - © 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com

PY - 2018/2/15

Y1 - 2018/2/15

N2 - Background: Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.Objectives: We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.Methods: A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.Results: Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.Conclusions: A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.Level of Evidence 4:

AB - Background: Breast implants can be characterized by their fill material, surface texture, or shape. Whereas long-term good quality studies have provided evidence for the fill material and texture, there is still little consensus for choosing the shape of an implant. Surveys indicate that many surgeons choose only one implant shape, for reasons that may not always agree with outcomes from long-term studies.Objectives: We reviewed the first author's experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation.Methods: A review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.Results: Six-hundred and forty-eight female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted over the six-year period. Mean age at surgery was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m2. All implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc). Among these patients, 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants developed complications postoperatively.Conclusions: A single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation does not exist. The optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation should take into account the patient's physical characteristics, available implant types, patient's desires, and the surgeon's experience. Together with round implants, anatomical devices ought to be considered as one of the tools in the surgeon's toolbox. By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon will only have access to half of his armamentarium and will therefore be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.Level of Evidence 4:

U2 - 10.1093/asj/sjx145

DO - 10.1093/asj/sjx145

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 254

EP - 261

JO - Aesthetic Surgery Journal

JF - Aesthetic Surgery Journal

SN - 1090-820X

IS - 3

ER -