Anatomic Implants in Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Outcomes and Aesthetic Results Compared to Smooth Round Silicone Implants.

BACKGROUND

Direct comparison studies of outcomes and aesthetic satisfaction of anatomic implants compared to other implants are scarce in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and aesthetic satisfaction of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with anatomic implants vs other implants (smooth round silicone).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction over 3 years. Outcomes including complications, number of surgeries, need for revisions, and aesthetic satisfaction of patients were tracked and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 123 underwent reconstruction with a round implant, and 33 underwent reconstruction with an anatomic implant. Of the 156 patients, 38 underwent a 1-stage direct-to-implant reconstruction and the remainder underwent a 2-stage implant reconstruction. The round and anatomic implant groups did not differ with regards to number of surgeries, revisions, utilization of contralateral symmetry procedures, implant-related reoperations, complications, implant loss, infection, capsular contracture, and seroma. The Breast Q survey had a response rate of 27%. On all parameters, the round and anatomic implant groups did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences among round and shaped implants in regards to complications, revision surgeries, and overall outcomes. Furthermore, patients showed no differences regarding satisfaction and well-being when surveyed on the Breast Q survey. The decision of implant choice in breast reconstruction should be based on surgeon comfort and the patient's needs/body type.

UNLABELLED

Level of Evidence: 4.