Device-Specific Findings of Imprinted-Texture Breast Implants: Characteristics, Risks, and Benefits

Abstract

Abstract Background The relative risks and benefits of various textured breast implants are the focus of considerable discussion. Studies have suggested different risk-benefit profiles for different implant surface topographies. Objectives The study aim was to provide device-specific, quantitative information on Mentor’s imprinted Siltex Textured breast implants with respect to textured surface characteristics and ISO 14607 classification, risk of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and risk-reduction benefits relative to smooth implants. Methods Surface metrology was performed. Data for smooth and Siltex implants from the prospective MemoryGel Core Study were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis for the most frequently occurring postoperative complications in augmentation and reconstruction leading to subsequent reoperation. Results The overall average surface roughness for Siltex MemoryGel and MemoryShape implants was 29.5 and 36.1 µm, respectively. A statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation in patients with Siltex compared with smooth devices over 10 years was observed for both capsular contracture in subglandular primary augmentation patients (2.02% vs 19.84%) and for asymmetry in primary reconstruction patients (3.88% vs 11.1%). Conclusions Surface analysis demonstrated that Siltex implants fall within the ISO 14607 category of “microtexture” breast implants. These devices exhibited a rare risk of BIA-ALCL (0.0012%) based on the most extensive data available. Relative to smooth implants, these Siltex devices provided risk-reduction benefits for the most common reason of reoperation in patients who underwent primary augmentation (capsular contracture) or primary reconstruction (asymmetry) in the Core Study. These findings provide valuable risk-benefit information for surgeons and their patients. Level of Evidence: 2