Augmentation mammoplasty with nanotextured breast implants

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To study the positive and negative aspects, technical features and complications after breast augmentation with nanotextured implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the results of augmentation mammoplasty and augmentation-mastopexy in 289 women (536 implants) with nanotextured implants (SmoothSilk surface, Motiva) for 5-year follow-up period. Ergonomix dynamically reshaping prostheses filled with Progressive Gel Ultima soft gel were used in 254 cases to give a more natural shape of the breasts. In 15 cases, we used Motiva Round implants with a harder Progressive Gel Plus gel to give a more rounded shape of the breast.

RESULTS

Soft consistency and high elasticity of the implants made it possible to make an incision 2-3 cm shorter compared to correction with cohesive gel. Characteristics of nanotextured implant surface are similar to implants with smooth surface. These implants form a delicate, thin capsule and tend to move down within 6—12 months after surgery. Thus, the prostheses were placed in a higher position. We formed a pocket tightly attached to the implant and fixed inframammary fold. Inframammary access was used in 246 cases. The ferrite core of microtranspoder installed in Motiva implants for their external identification causes MRI artifact that distorts imaging of underlying tissues. There were no capsular contracture, early and late seromas, double capsules and implant ruptures throughout 5-year follow-up period. There are literature data on anaplastic large cell lymphoma arising after breast correction with smooth and nanotextured implants.

CONCLUSION

Nanotextured implants ensure thin delicate capsule with minimal risk of capsular contracture, late seroma and large cell lymphoma. These implants imply certain technical features of implantation.

Keywords:

mammoplasty

implants

Motiva

complications

capsular contracture

rupture

Authors:

S.A. Plaksin

Vagner Perm State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0001-8108-1655

D.N. Ponomarev

Wagner Perm State Medical University

N.I. Khramtsova

Wagner Perm State Medical University

Received:

28.01.2022

Accepted:

08.05.2022

List of references:

Caplin DA. Implant Testing and the «Strain Energy» Concept. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018;142(4S):12-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004998
Li S, Chen L, Liu W, Mu D, Luan J. Capsular Contracture Rate After Breast Augmentation with Periareolar Versus Other Two (Inframammary and Transaxillary) Incisions: A Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2018;42(1): 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0965-1
Li S, Mu D, Liu C, Xin M, Fu S, Xu B, Li Z, Qi J, Luan J. Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2019;43(4):890-898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01404-7
Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular Contracture after Breast Augmentation: An Update for Clinical Practice. Archives of Plastic Surgery. 2015;42(5):532-543. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.5.532
Oulharj S, Pauchot J, Tropet Y. PIP breast implant removal: a study of 828 cases. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2014;67(3):302-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.016
Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A, Seno A, Mileto D, Paganelli A, Sulaiman H, Payne M, Maurovich-Horvat L. Preliminary 3-Year Evaluation of Experience With SilkSurface and VelvetSurface Motiva Silicone Breast Implants: A Single-Center Experience With 5813 Consecutive Breast Augmentation Cases. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2021;41(5):639. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz124
Atlan M, Nuti G, Wang H, Decker S, Perry T. Breast implant surface texture impacts host tissue response. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2018;88:377-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.035
Jewell ML, Bengtson BP, Smither K, Nuti G, Perry T. Physical Properties of Silicone Gel Breast Implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(3): 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy103
FDA Update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants (2011) — Executive Summary. Accessed January 11, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/update-safety-silicone-gel-filled-breast-implants-2011-executive-summary
Fei X, Li S, Gao S, Wei L, Wang L. Application safety evaluation of the radio frequency identification tag under magnetic resonance imaging. BioMedical Engineering OnLine. 2014;13:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925x-13-129
Meisamy S, Nelson MT. The Effects of Q InsideTM Safety Technology Micro Transponder on Routine Breast Implant Imaging. Open Journal of Medical Imaging. 2019;09(02):19-31. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmi.2019.92002
Mendonça Munhoz A, Chala L, de Melo GG, Marques Filho AA, Tucunduva T, Gemperli R. Usefulness of Radio Frequency Identification Device in Diagnosing Rotation of Motiva SmoothSilk Implants after Augmentation Mammoplasty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery — Global Open. 2019; 7(11):e2497. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002497
Sforza M, Hammond DC, Botti G, Hedén P, Chacón Quirós M, Munhoz AM, Kinney BM, Corduff N. Expert Consensus on the Use of a New Bioengineered, Cell-Friendly, Smooth Surface Breast Implant. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(Suppl 3):95-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz054
Quirós MC, Bolaños MC, Fassero JJ. Six-Year Prospective Outcomes of Primary Breast Augmentation With Nano Surface Implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(5):495-508. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy196
Huemer GM, Wenny R, Aitzetmüller MM, Duscher D. Motiva Ergonomix Round SilkSurface Silicone Breast Implants: Outcome Analysis of 100 Primary Breast Augmentations over 3 Years and Technical Considerations. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018;141(6):831e-842e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004367
Moon DS, Choi WS, Kim HC, Jeong JP, Sung JY, Kim JH. Short-term treatment outcomes and safety of two representative brands of the fifth-generation silicone gel-filled breast implants in Korea. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery. 2021;55(6):345-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/2000656x.2021.1888744
Sim HB. Revisiting Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: Indications and Refinements. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2019;39(5):113-122. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy294
Clemens MW. Discussion: The Epidemiology of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand Confirms the Highest Risk for Grade 4 Surface Breast Implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2019;143(5):1295-1297. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005588
Magnusson M, Beath K, Cooter R, Locke M, Prince HM, Elder E, Deva AK. The Epidemiology of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand Confirms the Highest Risk for Grade 4 Surface Breast Implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2019;143(5): 1285-1292. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005500
Jones P, Mempin M, Hu H, Chowdhury D, Foley M, Cooter R, Adams WP Jr, Vickery K, Deva AK. The Functional Influence of Breast Implant Outer Shell Morphology on Bacterial Attachment and Growth. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018;142(4):837-849. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004801

Close metadata