Outcomes Utilizing Inspira Implants in Revisionary Reconstructive Surgery.

BACKGROUND

Inspira round implants have a higher fill ratio than standard round implants and the 3 available implant types have increasing gel cohesivity. Collectively, these features may help provide a fuller upper pole and help reduce the risk of rippling, visible implant edges, and palpability and may be particularly beneficial in patients undergoing prepectoral reconstruction. Patient outcomes after prepectoral revision reconstruction with these implants are reviewed in this study.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had previously undergone subpectoral (dual plane), implant-based, breast reconstruction and presented for revision reconstruction between June 2015 and January 2018. Reasons for revision included animation deformity, pain, asymmetry implant malposition, size change, capsular contracture, and rippling. Revision reconstruction involved implant removal, site change from subpectoral to prepectoral, and immediate implant replacement in all patients. Complications after revision reconstruction were obtained from patient records.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients (124 breasts) met the inclusion criteria. During a mean follow-up period of 18.9 months, complications occurred in 4 breasts (3.2%) and included implant loss (1.6%), seroma (1.6%), hematoma (0.8%), surgical site infection (0.8%), and skin necrosis (0.8%). There was no incidence of capsular contracture and presenting complaints were resolved in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Prepectoral reconstruction, in conjunction with Inspira round implants, appears to be a safe and effective approach in suitable patients presenting for revision surgery, at least in the short term. Implant features facilitate prepectoral implant placement, resulting in pleasing aesthetic outcomes. Whether these outcomes will withstand the test of time remains to be seen.