Complications that require surgical removal or replacement of breast implants occur with approximately equal frequency between the different types of implants used today. This finding comes from a Dutch study recently published in Jama surgeryled by Juliët Vrolijk, MD, from the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht in the Netherlands.
The study also shows that it is possible to combine data from different national registries for the production of studies with sufficient statistical power, as noted by a group led by Katherine Anne Rodby, MD, Plastic Surgeon from the University of North Carolina Medical School in Chapel Hill comments published in the same issue of Jama surgery.
Rodby and his colleagues further indicate that the results of such aggregate analyzes are likely to be more general than those of studies conducted in a single center.
Real world data
“Although breast implants have been used for decades to improve quality of life, there are controversy over their overall security and concerns about specific manufacturers, shapes and surface textures,” the authors noted.
Despite their widespread use, no international large -scale studies have been conducted on the long -term frequency of reviewing different types of implants. Because complications are rare, smaller studies have not provided sufficient data on the safety of different types of implants. In order to address this gap, Vrolijk and his colleagues conducted the first analysis of the actual data from two important national records: the Australian Registry Registry and the Dutch Breast Implant Register.
The study included all women in Australia and the Netherlands who received permanent breast implants between 2016 and 2021 for breast cancer, benign conditions that required surgery or selective breast increase. The saline -filled implants, which are rarely used for permanent implantation in these countries, were excluded.
In total, 21,115 rebuilding and 129,854 cosmetics implants were admitted to patients with an average age of 47 (38-55 years) and 31 (25-38) years respectively.
The findings showed that the revision rates associated with complications were 6.3% for reconstruction and 1.2% for cosmetic implants. The researchers further examined the review rates based on the shape of the implant, the surface texture and the filling material.
Anatomically landscaped polyurethane shell and smooth silicone implants with silicone had higher review rates for malignancy in the rebuilding group, while the round implants stretched with silicone shell were often reviewed for the cement. Overall, the rates of complications were minimal between the implant types.
Five Year review of results
The situation was somewhat different for cosmetic implants. Specifically, the anatomical implants of silicone with polyurethane surface showed a significantly lower risk of revision (with a risk ratio of 0.38) compared to anatomical silicone implants with texture. However, after 5 years, when Vrolijk and the team examined the cumulative impact of review, they found no significant differences between different types of implants in each group.
“This study has shown that international data sets can be concentrated to evaluate the actual incidence of breast implant review, which is expected to create a foundation for which future breast implant studies can be based,” the authors concluded.
Restrictions
One restriction of the study, as noted by the authors, is that while the data was gathered, various factors had not been taken into account that could affect the outcome of breast or growth reconstruction. Specifically, the group highlights the missing data on the women’s body mass index and the condition of smoking.
The findings are reassuring for plastic surgeons, suggesting that “implant type choice can be done on the basis of clinical indications, aesthetic goals and preferences of patients”.
This story was translated by The German version of Medscape Using various editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human authors reviewed this content before publishing.
