Replacement of Shaped Textured Implants with Round Smooth Implants in Breast Reconstruction: Long-Term Outcomes

Haripriya S Ayyala,Tarek Afifi,Nikki Castel,Colleen McCarthy,Peter G Cordeiro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011001
2024-08-01
Abstract:Background: The number of patients undergoing exchange of textured implants for smooth devices has greatly increased because of concern over breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The authors examined long-term patient- and surgeon-reported outcomes in terms of aesthetics, comfort, and complications. Methods: Patients who underwent reconstruction with shaped, textured implants replaced with round, smooth implants between 1994 and 2022 and who had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Patient-reported outcomes were collected using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction module and a survey evaluating aesthetics and comfort. Surgeon-reported outcomes included evaluation of aesthetics and capsular contracture. Results: A total of 530 patients were reviewed, and 307 patients were included. Pairwise comparison of BREAST-Q data demonstrated that psychosocial well-being (72.68 to 76.45; P = 0.0075) and physical well-being (78.79 to 81.88; P = 0.0078) increased significantly. Overall breast satisfaction (61.94 to 67.27; P = 0.0082) and sexual well-being (53.89 to 57.98; P = 0.0002) were also significantly higher in parallel with a clinically meaningful increase in BREAST-Q score of 5.33 and 4.09 points, respectively. Most patients felt they appeared better (56.4%) or similar (27.3%) and were more comfortable (54.4%) or similar (39.4%) after the exchange procedure. The senior surgeon (P.G.C.) rated 40.1% of patients as having a better aesthetic grade after replacement and 50.3% as the same; 36.8% of patients were rated as having a decrease in Baker capsular contracture grade; 2.9% of patients experienced a perioperative complication; and there were no reconstructive failures. Conclusion: Exchange of textured to smooth implants is safe, does not sacrifice aesthetic outcome, and provides a more comfortable and satisfactory outcome for patients with minimal complications. Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, IV.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?