Clinical Evaluation of Shaped Gel Breast Implant Rotation Using High-Resolution Ultrasound

Background Clinical trials have demonstrated through core and independent studies that anatomical devices are safe and effective with low complication rates. The rotation rate of shaped breast implants in the literature is 0 to 8.2%. Currently there are no studies evaluating the efficacy of in office ultrasound or clinical rotation vs actual rotation rates seen on high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). Objectives The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the ease and reliability of HRUS for evaluating the rotation rate of 2 different brands of anatomic implants and to correlate this with the presumed clinical rate, as well as independent evaluators assessments. Methods A total of 69 patients were followed up at routine intervals and were evaluated for rotation. Any implant rotated past >30° off of midline (outside 5-7 o’clock) was considered to be rotated. To determine if radiographic rotation was clinically evident, 20 composite patient photos were blindly evaluated. Results A random total of 69 patients underwent bilateral augmentation mammoplasty with form stable anatimic gel implants using 138 implants. Twenty-nine of the 69 (42%) patients and 37 of the 138 (27%) implants were found to be rotated-using HRUS. Eight of the 69 (12%) patients had bilateral rotations. Independent evaluators were able to identify two of 12 (17%) possible rotations, or 2 rotations in 40 (5%) total implants. Conclusions Anatomic form stable gel implants are actually rotated up to 25 times more frequently than previously thought, but these rotations do not translate into clinically significant sequela. High-resolution ultrasound is a simple alternative for breast implant surveillance and is better accepted by patients than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The clinical value of HRUS is also discussed and recommendations for FDA implant labeling changes are provided in this article. Level of Evidence 4

[1]  H. Sim,et al.  Transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation with shaped gel implants. , 2015, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[2]  M. Scheflan,et al.  Anatomical and Round Breast Implants: How to Select and Indications for Use , 2015, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[3]  W. G. Stevens,et al.  Eight-year follow-up data from the U.S. clinical trial for Sientra's FDA-approved round and shaped implants with high-strength cohesive silicone gel. , 2015, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[4]  B. Derby,et al.  Textured Silicone Breast Implant Use in Primary Augmentation: Core Data Update and Review , 2015, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  G. Maxwell,et al.  Ten-year results from the natrelle® 410 anatomical form stable silicone breast implant core study , 2014 .

[6]  David A. Sieber,et al.  MemoryShape: Impact of Clinical Trials, Global Medical Economics, and the Future , 2014, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[7]  D. Hammond.  Technique and Results Using MemoryShape Implants in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery , 2014, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[8]  Jamil Ahmad,et al.  Subglandular Breast Augmentation with Textured, Anatomic, Cohesive Silicone Implants: A Review of 440 Consecutive Patients , 2013, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[9]  K. Başaran,et al.  Transaxillary Totally Subfascial Breast Augmentation with Anatomical Breast Implants: Review of 27 Cases , 2013, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[10]  J. Largent,et al.  Clinical trial outcomes of high- and extra high-profile breast implants. , 2013, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[11]  D. Caplin,et al.  Mentor Contour Profile Gel Implants: Clinical Outcomes at 6 Years , 2012, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  E. Riggio.  Breast Augmentation with Extra-projected and High-Cohesive Dual-Gel Prosthesis 510: A Prospective Study of 75 Consecutive Cases for a New Method (the Zenith System) , 2012, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

[13]  B. Bengtson,et al.  High-resolution ultrasound in the detection of silicone gel breast implant shell failure: background, in vitro studies, and early clinical results. , 2012, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[14]  R. Rauso,et al.  Malrotation of the McGhan style 510 prosthesis. , 2011, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[15]  João Carlos Sampaio Góes.  Breast Implant Stability in the Subfascial Plane and the New Shaped Silicone Gel Breast Implants , 2010, Aesthetic plastic surgery.

[16]  M. Jewell,et al.  A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. , 2010, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[17]  D. Wallwiener,et al.  Sonographic Criteria for the Confirmation of Implant Rotation and the Development of an Implant-Capsule-Interaction (“Interface”) in Anatomically Formed Textured Breast Implants with Texturised Biocell®-Surface , 2009 .

[18]  W. Adams,et al.  The Process of Breast Augmentation: Four Sequential Steps for Optimizing Outcomes for Patients , 2008, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[19]  G. Jurell,et al.  Prospective Study Comparing Two Brands of Cohesive Gel Breast Implants with Anatomic Shape: 5-Year Follow-Up Evaluation , 2007, Aesthetic plastic surgery.

[20]  J. Tebbetts.  Achieving a Zero Percent Reoperation Rate at 3 Years in a 50-Consecutive-Case Augmentation Mammaplasty Premarket Approval Study , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[21]  M. Scheflan,et al.  Comparative double blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants. , 2006, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[22]  W. Adams,et al.  Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[23]  S. Silver,et al.  Cohesive Silicone Gel Breast Implants in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery , 2005, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[24]  P. Hedén,et al.  Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world's largest current experience. , 2001, Clinics in plastic surgery.