BACKGROUND: Clinical data concerning potential risks and benefits associated with the use of high- and extra high-profile breast implants are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The authors assess the risk of adverse events (AE) with high- and extra high-profile breast implants compared with low- to moderate-profile breast implants in patients enrolled in long-term clinical studies. METHODS: Relative risks (RR) of capsular contracture (CC), moderate to severe malposition, and secondary procedure were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for patient, procedure, and device characteristics among patients enrolled in the primary augmentation cohorts of the Core (NCT00689871; round, silicone-filled implants) and 410 (NCT00690339; shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants) clinical studies. Study pooling provided comparisons of implant shape and fill, as well as contributed to relative outcome. Analyses were also stratified by preoperative breast measures. RESULTS: In the Core study (N = 454; 907 implants; mean follow-up 7.2 years; 3669 person-years), and the combined Core and 410 studies (N = 4412; 8811 implants; mean follow-up 3.0 years; 14 528 person-years), risk of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy as a secondary procedure were reduced in high-profile versus low- to moderate-profile breast implants (P < .05). The risk of moderate to severe malposition was not significantly different between high-profile and low- to moderate-profile breast implants in the Core or combined studies (RR, 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-1.51] and RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.31-1.70], respectively). Analyses stratified by preoperative breast measures did not indicate higher risk of CC, malposition, or secondary procedure among patients with either smaller (<17 cm) or larger (≥17 cm) preoperative measures. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary augmentation patients with round, silicone-filled, or shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants, high- and extra high-profile implants were associated with lower risks of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy and were not associated with greater risks of moderate to severe malposition versus low- to moderate-profile implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
BACKGROUND: Clinical data concerning potential risks and benefits associated with the use of high- and extra high-profile breast implants are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The authors assess the risk of adverse events (AE) with high- and extra high-profile breast implants compared with low- to moderate-profile breast implants in patients enrolled in long-term clinical studies. METHODS: Relative risks (RR) of capsular contracture (CC), moderate to severe malposition, and secondary procedure were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for patient, procedure, and device characteristics among patients enrolled in the primary augmentation cohorts of the Core (NCT00689871; round, silicone-filled implants) and 410 (NCT00690339; shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants) clinical studies. Study pooling provided comparisons of implant shape and fill, as well as contributed to relative outcome. Analyses were also stratified by preoperative breast measures. RESULTS: In the Core study (N = 454; 907 implants; mean follow-up 7.2 years; 3669 person-years), and the combined Core and 410 studies (N = 4412; 8811 implants; mean follow-up 3.0 years; 14 528 person-years), risk of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy as a secondary procedure were reduced in high-profile versus low- to moderate-profile breast implants (P < .05). The risk of moderate to severe malposition was not significantly different between high-profile and low- to moderate-profile breast implants in the Core or combined studies (RR, 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-1.51] and RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.31-1.70], respectively). Analyses stratified by preoperative breast measures did not indicate higher risk of CC, malposition, or secondary procedure among patients with either smaller (<17 cm) or larger (≥17 cm) preoperative measures. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary augmentation patients with round, silicone-filled, or shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants, high- and extra high-profile implants were associated with lower risks of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy and were not associated with greater risks of moderate to severe malposition versus low- to moderate-profile implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Yara Bachour; Linda Poort; Stephan P Verweij; Gijs van Selms; Hay A H Winters; Marco J P F Ritt; Frank B Niessen; Andries E Budding Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 2.326