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 is 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. 123 underwent reconstruction with a round implant, while 33 underwent reconstruction with an anatomic implant. Of the 156 patients, 38 underwent a one-stage direct to implant reconstruction while the remainder underwent a two-stage implant reconstruction. There was no significant difference between the round and anatomic implant group with regards to number of surgeries, revisions, use of contralateral symmetry procedure, implant related reoperation, complications, implant loss, infection, capsular contracture and seroma. The Breast Q survey had a response rate of 27%. On all parameters there was no significant difference between the round and anatomic implant group. CONCLUSIONS There are 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 wellbeing when surveyed on the Breast Q. The decision for implant choice in breast reconstruction should be based on surgeon comfort, and the patient's needs/body type.