Michael Atlan1,2,3, Maxence Bigerelle4, Véronique Larreta-garde5, Mathilde Hindié5, Per Hedén6. 1. Aesthetic Plastic Reconstructive Unit/CHU TENON PARIS -APHP, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, France. drmichaelatlan@gmail.com. 2. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, UPMC PARIS VI, 91 boulevard de l'hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. drmichaelatlan@gmail.com. 3. Institut Universitaire du Cancer, UPMC, 91 boulevard de l'hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. drmichaelatlan@gmail.com. 4. Laboratoire d'automatique, de mécanique et d'informatique industrielles et humaines, Valenciennes, France. 5. Laboratoire ERRMECe, EA 1391, 95302, Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France. 6. Akademikliniken, Storängsvägen 10, 11542, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers. METHODS: Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer. RESULTS: Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (p < 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell® texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands. CONCLUSIONS: Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell® texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
UNLABELLED: Several companies offer anatomically shaped breast implants but differences among manufacturers are often misunderstood. The shell texture is a crucial parameter for anatomically shaped implants to prevent rotation and to decrease the risk of capsular contracture, even though concerns have recently been raised concerning the complications associated with textured breast implants. The aim of this study was to characterize differences in terms of texture, cell adhesion, shape, and stiffness between some commonly used anatomically shaped implants from three different manufacturers. METHODS: Five commercially available anatomically shaped breast implants from 3 different manufacturers (Allergan, Mentor, and Sebbin) were used. Scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microtomography, and scanning mechanical microscopy were used to characterize the shell texture. Human fibroblast adhesion onto the shells was evaluated. 3D models of the implants were obtained using CT-scan acquisitions to analyze their shape. Implant stiffness was evaluated using a tractiometer. RESULTS: Major differences were observed in the topography of the textures of the shells, but this was not conveyed by a statistically significant fibroblast adhesion difference. However, fibroblasts adhered better on anatomically shaped textured implants than on smooth implants (p < 0.01). Our work pointed out differences in the Biocell® texture in comparison with older studies. The 3D analysis showed significant shape differences between the anatomically shaped implants of the 3 companies, despite similar dimensions. Implant stiffness was comparable among the 3 brands. CONCLUSIONS: Each texture had its specific topography, and this work is the first description of Sebbin anatomic breast implant texturation. Moreover, major discrepancies were found in the analysis of the Biocell® texture when comparing our results with previous reports. These differences may have clinical implications and are discussed. This study also highlighted major shape differences among breast implants from different manufacturers, which is quite counterintuitive. The clinical impact of these differences however needs further investigation. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Authors: Jong Ho Lee; Jeong Yeop Ryu; Joon Seok Lee; Kang Young Choi; Ho Yun Chung; Byung Chae Cho; Koeun Kim; Young Ju Lee; Hee Kyung Jin; Jae-Sung Bae; Jung Dug Yang Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.406