BACKGROUND: The management of capsular contraction following breast augmentation has numerous, often conflicting potential treatment protocols, each designed to reduce the incidence of further recurrence. The use of the subfascial plane has not been investigated as an alternative to other treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To examine the outcomes from patients presenting with recurrent capsular contraction after being treated for the first capsule by placement of an implant into the subfascial (SF) plane. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 111 case notes of patients who presented with capsular contraction. 65 had undergone SF augmentation, 17 submuscular (SM) and 29 subglandular (SG) placement of implant at the primary procedure. At a secondary procedure, those with SF implants underwent open capsulotomy and those with SM and SG implants underwent a change in plane to SF. RESULTS: There is a significant difference in the proportion of patients that developed a capsule following the second surgery between the groups that had undergone capsulotomy (SF = 16.9%) or plane change (SM = 47% and SG = 37.9%, X (2,111) = 8.6, P =  0.02). When recurrence at the same site was examined, there was also a significant difference between the groups (X (2111) = 10.7, P < 0.01). A ruptured implant significantly increased the incidence of further capsular contraction when in the SG plane (X (2,29) = 12.1, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of implant rupture, changing the plane of an implant to a SF position at revision surgery does not reduce the incidence of subsequent capsular contracture compared with open capsulotomy. Open capsulotomy is a reasonable choice following recurrence of capsular contraction following initial SF placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .