In search for the ‘perfect’ breast implant: are textured implants still indicated in today’s breast augmentation practice?

Abstract

Abstract The popularity of breast augmentation procedure has driven research and debate as to whether any given implant characteristic offers a functional advantage. One such debate exists about the role of surface texturing. In the aftermath of the recent withdrawal of aggressively textured surfaces we would like to summarize the first author’s experience of nearly 1500 primary aesthetic breast augmentations with different surfaces and offer our thoughts on this topic. All consecutive primary breast augmentations operated by the first author from January 2010 to June 2019 were included. All patients had silicone implants inserted via inframammary incision. Of all the operated cases, 1029 consecutive female patients had at least 6 months’ follow-up (mean 15.1 months). Their mean age was 31.2 years, mean BMI 20.8 kg/m2 and mean implant volume was 311 cc. 997(96.9%) patients had dual plane and 32(3.1%) had sub-glandular implant placement. In total 113 patients (11.0%) developed a complication. This represented 15.1% of those with round and 10.0% of anatomical shape (or 10.6% of textured and 14.5% of smooth surface implants). As clinicians, we like patients to receive all the advantages of an implant but not be exposed to any risks. However, in reality, such a ‘perfect implant’ still does not exist. New literature continues to shed light on this trade-off between an implant’s perceived utility and its complications profile. We hope that the search for an alternative technology, with more beneficial surface characteristics and less drawbacks, continues.