Anatomical implants provide a wide range of options in terms
of implant dimensions for breast augmentation. Nevertheless, many surgeons
choose not to use anatomical implants due to the risk of rotation malposition
and because their advantages over round implants are not clearly defined.
Methods:
A retrospective review of medical records was performed on
all women who underwent breast augmentation or implant exchange with
microtextured anatomical implants from 2012 to 2019 in a single private clinic.
The authors focused on the outcomes of a subgroup of women with glandular
ptosis and nipple placement below the inframammary fold who underwent breast
augmentation with anatomical implants. Furthermore, the incidence and risk
factors for implant rotation were analyzed.
Results:
In total, 653 women underwent primary breast augmentation (n =
529) or implant exchange (n = 124) with anatomical implants. The median
follow-up period was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.6 to 3.9 years). The
incidence of implant rotation was 14 (2.6 percent) in the primary augmentation
group and four (3.2 percent) in the implant exchange group. Implant rotation
was not associated with type of surgery (p = 0.76), implant projection (p =
0.23), or implant height (p = 0.48). The authors successfully used anatomical
implants to elevate the nipple in 92.9 percent of the women with glandular
ptosis without using a mastopexy.
Conclusions:
The study results indicate that the rotation risk with
microtextured implants is similar to that with macrotextured implants. Furthermore,
the authors found that high-projection anatomical implants can be used as an
alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in women with glandular ptosis.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Therapeutic, III.
