Breast reconstruction with mentor anatomical implants and the risk of implant rotation: A retrospective study of 1134 women.

BACKGROUND: Implant rotation is a known complication to breast reconstruction using anatomical implants. However, there is a lack of large studies investigating the risk of implant rotation and potential predisposing risk factors. METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with Mentor anatomical implants from 2010 to 2021 at two Danish hospitals. We compared the risk of implant rotation between one- and two-stage breast reconstruction using univariate logistic regression. We analyzed the effect of biological mesh, immediate versus delayed reconstruction, and use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume on the risk of implant rotation. Finally, we analyzed the success rate of revision surgery for implant rotation. RESULTS: In total, 1134 patients were enrolled. Patients who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction (n = 720) had a significantly higher risk of implant rotation than those who underwent one-stage breast reconstruction (n = 426; 11% vs. 5%, p < 0.01). There was no significant association between implant rotation and the use of biological mesh, immediate breast reconstruction, or use of a higher final expander volume than the permanent implant volume. The success rate of revision surgery after implant rotation was 73% (62/85 rotations). CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage breast reconstruction significantly increased the risk of implant rotation compared to one-stage breast reconstruction. The overall risk of implant rotation was low and success rate of revision surgery was high. These findings suggest that anatomical implants are safe to use for breast reconstruction. However, surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of implant rotation after two-stage reconstruction.

Silicone Leakage from Breast Implants Is Determined by Silicone Cohesiveness: A Histological Study of 493 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Silicone leakage from breast implants is a concern with potential implications for patient health. This study aimed to quantify and model silicone leakage from implants to the breast implant capsule and to investigate whether silicone cohesiveness affected the silicone leakage rate. METHODS: Silicone content in the breast implant capsule was quantified histologically by measuring the area of silicone deposits. This was used to model silicone leakage over time based on the time of implantation. The effect of cohesiveness on silicone leakage was investigated across all implant brands with declared cohesiveness and in a subanalysis comparing only Mentor cohesive I implants with cohesive II and III implants. RESULTS: The study included 493 patients with 872 breasts and a median time of implantation of 13.0 years (range 0.4 to 51 years). The modeling of silicone leakage from intact implants showed that leakage and the acceleration of the leakage rate were significantly higher in low-cohesive implants than in highly cohesive implants (p<0.05). This was confirmed when analyzing only Mentor implants (p<0.05) and in the case of implant rupture (p<0.01) where low-cohesive implants also leaked significantly more than highly cohesive implants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that highly cohesive implants are superior to low-cohesive implants in preventing silicone leakage. Due to the accelerating rate of silicone leakage especially found in low-cohesive implants, we propose that exchange of low-cohesive implants could be discussed with patients 10 to 15 years after implantation to minimize silicone leakage even in the absence of implant rupture.