Is Banning Texturized Implants to Prevent Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma a Rational Decision? A Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Study

Smooth versus Textured Tissue Expanders: Comparison of Outcomes and Complications in 536 Implants

Background  Increasing concerns regarding the safety of textured surface implants have resulted in surgeons transitioning from textured tissue expanders (TEs) to smooth TEs. Given this change has only recently occurred, this study evaluated outcomes between smooth and textured TEs. Methods  Women who underwent two-stage breast reconstruction using TEs from 2013 to 2022 were included. TE-specific variables, perioperative information, pain scores, and complications were collected. Chi-squared, t -test, and linear regression analyses were performed. Results  A total of 320 patients received a total of 384 textured and 152 smooth TEs. Note that 216 patients received bilateral reconstruction. TEs were removed in 9 cases. No significant differences existed between groups regarding comorbidities. Smooth TEs had a higher proportion of prepectoral placement ( p  < 0.001). Smooth TEs had less fills (3 ± 1 vs. 4 ± 2, p  < 0.001), shorter expansion periods (60 ± 44 vs. 90 ± 77 days, p  < 0.001), smaller expander fill volumes (390 ± 168 vs. 478 ± 177 mL, p  < 0.001), and shorter time to exchange (80 ± 43 vs. 104 ± 39 days, p  < 0.001). Complication rates between textured and smooth TEs were comparable. Smooth TE had a greater proportion of TE replacements ( p  = 0.030). On regression analysis, pain scores were more closely associated with age ( p  = 0.018) and TE texture ( p  = 0.046). Additional procedures at time of TE exchange ( p  < 0.001) and textured TE ( p  = 0.017) led to longer operative times. Conclusion  As many surgeons have transitioned away from textured implants, our study shows that smooth TEs have similar outcomes to the textured alternatives.

Definitions of Abnormal Breast Size and Asymmetry: A Cohort Study of 400 Women

BACKGROUND

Macromastia, micromastia and breast asymmetry have an impact on health and quality of life. However, there is scarce information addressing breast size and asymmetry frequency distribution in reference populations.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to identify factors that influence breast size and symmetry and classifies abnormal breast sizes and breast asymmetries in an adult German population.

METHODS

Breast base dimensions, breast volume, symmetry, and other breast anthropometric parameters of 400 German female patients were determined in a retrospective review of the MRI archives at our institution. Professional medical MRI-segmentation software was used for volume measurement.

RESULTS

A total of 400 Patients were retrospectively enrolled. The patients had a mean age of 50 ± 12 years (min: 24; max: 82), mean BMI of 25.0 ± 5.0 (min: 14.7, max: 45.6), and a mean total breast volume of 976 ml (right: 973 ml, min: 64, max: 4777; left: 979 ml, min: 55, max: 4670). The strongest correlation of breast volume was observed with BMI (r = 0.834, p < 0.001), followed by breast base width (r = 0.799, p < 0.001). Smaller breasts have higher breast volume asymmetry ratios (r = - 0.124, p < 0.014). For a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, micromastia is defined by breast volumes below 250 ml (5th percentile) and macromastia by volumes above 1250 ml (95th percentile). Abnormal breast volume asymmetry (< 5th and > 95th percentile) is equivalent to an absolute difference of approximately 25% relative to the smallest side (bidirectional asymmetry ratio 5th percentile - 19%; 95th percentile 26%).

CONCLUSION

This study provides normative data of German women, as well as selected size-for-BMI percentiles and asymmetry ratio percentiles. The normative data may help to establish transparent and objective coverage criteria for health insurances.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .

Textured vs. Smooth Breast Implants Using the Jones Criteria-What Is the Currently Available Evidence for BIA-ALCL?: A Systematic Review

Breast-Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare low-incidence type of T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, arising in the capsule around breast implants, and predominantly associated with the use of macro-textured breast implants. The purpose of this study was to use an evidence-based approach to systematically identify clinical studies comparing smooth and textured breast implants in women with regard to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed in April 2023 and the article reference list of the French National Agency of Medicine and Health Products decision from 2019 were screened for applicable studies. Only clinical studies where the Jones surface classification could be applied (required information: breast implant manufacturer) for comparison of smooth and textured breast implants were considered.

RESULTS

From a total of 224 studies, no articles were included due to the lack of fit to the strict inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the scanned and included literature, implant surface types in relation to the incidence of BIA-ALCL were not evaluated in clinical studies and data from evidence-based clinical sources plays a minor to no role in this context. An international database that combines breast implant-related data from (national, opt-out) medical device registries is, therefore, the best available option to obtain relevant long-term breast implant surveillance data on BIA-ALCL.

The Macrotextured Implant Recall: Breast Implant-Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Risk Aversion in Cosmetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Practices

BACKGROUND

The recall of Allergan Biocell (Irvine, CA) devices due to the association between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and macrotextured breast implants means that plastic surgeons are faced with the challenge of caring for patients with these implants in situ. Cosmetic and reconstructive surgeons have been contacting affected patients to encourage them to follow up and discuss the most appropriate risk-reduction strategies.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient concerns about the risk of breast implant-associated ALCL (BIA-ALCL) and to compare management differences between cosmetic and reconstructive patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 432 patients with macrotextured implants who presented to clinic after being contacted (121 reconstructive and 311 cosmetic). These records were analyzed for their presenting concerns, surgery wait times, and management plans. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the cohorts, and odds ratios (ORs) were computed to determine the association between patient concerns and their choice of management.

RESULTS

After consultation, 59.5% of the reconstructive cohort and 49.5% of the cosmetic cohort scheduled implant removal or exchange. The reconstructive population had a higher rate of ALCL concern (62.7%); however, both cohorts had a significant OR, demonstrating an expressed fear of ALCL likely contributed to their subsequent clinical management (OR cosmetic, 1.66; OR reconstructive, 2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the risk of ALCL appears to be more concerning to the reconstructive population, both cohorts were equally motivated to have their implants removed. Informing patients about their ALCL risk is crucial to ensure a patient-supported risk reduction plan.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Clinical recommendations for diagnosis and treatment according to current updated knowledge on BIA-ALCL

Shared strategies and correct information are essential to guide physicians in the management of such an uncommon disease as Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). A systematic review of the literature was performed to collect the most relevant evidence on BIA-ALCL reported cases. A panel of multidisciplinary experts discussed the scientific evidence on BIA-ALCL, and updated consensus recommendations were developed through the Delphi process. The lastest reported Italian incidence of BIA-ALCL is 3.5 per 100.000 implanted patients (95% CI, 1.36 to 5.78), and the disease counts over 1216 cases worldwide as of June 2022. The most common presentation symptom is a late onset seroma followed by a palpable breast mass. In the event of a suspicious case, ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration should be the first step in evaluation, followed by cytologic and immunohistochemical examination. In patients with confirmed diagnosis of BIA-ALCL confined to the capsule, the en-bloc capsulectomy should be performed, followed by immediate autologous reconstruction, while delayed reconstruction applies for disseminate disease or radically unresectable tumor. Nevertheless, a multidisciplinary team approach is essential for the correct management of this pathology.

Smooth versus Textured Implants and Their Association with the Frequency of Capsular Contracture in Primary Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture is the most frequent complication of breast implant augmentation. Although studies indicate that textured implants have a low incidence of contracture, they have been associated with anaplastic cell lymphoma, which influences the choice of surface. This study estimated and compared the annual capsular contracture rate of both smooth and textured implants in primary breast implants.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-three patients (506 implants) were evaluated from January of 2017 to July of 2019; 42.2 percent of the implants were smooth and 57.8 percent were textured. The inframammary approach was used in the subfascial (55.3 percent) and submuscular (44.7 percent) pockets. The primary outcome was the appearance of capsular contracture (Baker grade II, III, and IV) within the first postoperative year.

RESULTS

Smooth implants had a higher capsular contracture rate at 1 year postoperatively compared with textured implants, although with borderline statistical significance (p = 0.06). Smooth surface breast implants in the subfascial plane had a 4-fold higher risk of contracture than those with a textured surface in the same plane (OR, 4.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 12.4). However, when placed in the submuscular plane, both textures had a similar contracture risk. The rate of contracture was similar after 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the inframammary approach and a standardized technique, there were no significant differences in the incidence of capsular contracture between the smooth and textured implants. In the subfascial plane, the contracture rate with smooth implants was higher than with textured implants. However, in the submuscular plane, there was no difference between the surfaces.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCW

Therapeutic, III.

Thinking Outside the Black Box: Current Perceptions on Breast Implant Safety and Utility

BACKGROUND

There is growing public concern surrounding breast implant safety. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently proposed changes to breast implant labeling, which include a boxed warning. Given such efforts to increase transparency on breast implant safety, this study assessed laywomen's perceptions of breast implant safety, and the impact of proposed changes to breast implant labeling on laywomen's decision-making regarding breast implants.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional investigation of women recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Discrete choice modeling was used to query opinions on breast implants after viewing proposed labeling changes. Chi-square and analysis of variance were used for subgroup analyses, and McNemar analyses were used to assess changes in participants' responses.

RESULTS

The authors received 500 survey responses. At baseline, 353 participants (70.6 percent) considered breast implants to be at least somewhat safe. After viewing the proposed boxed warning, 252 participants (50.4 percent) responded that they would be less likely to receive implants. In fact, a significantly greater proportion of participants considered breast implants to be either unsafe or very unsafe after viewing suggested changes to implant labeling than at baseline (58.4 percent versus 28.8 percent; p = 0.001). By the end of the survey, willingness to consider alternative options for breast augmentation/reconstruction increased significantly from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved labeling can enhance laywomen's understanding of breast implant safety and can impact decision-making. However, greater scrutiny of breast implants should not prevent women who need implants from receiving them. Transparency and objectivity in the surgeon-patient dialogue can ensure the appropriate use of medical devices such as breast implants.

Is the skin microbiota a modifiable risk factor for breast disease?: A systematic review

PURPOSE

High prevalence, unreliable risk discrimination and poor clinical outcomes are observed in malignant and benign breast diseases (BD). The involvement of microbial communities in the development of BD has become topical, and distal influences of microbial dysregulation in the breast have been well established. Despite advances, the role of the breast skin microbiota in BD remains unclear. Interactions between the skin microbiota and the underlying mucosal immune system are complex. In homeostasis, the skin offers a physical barrier protecting underlying breast tissue from skin commensals and noxious environmental triggers. Our review aims to illuminate the role of the skin microbiota in the development of BD.

METHODS

Adhering to the PRISMA protocol, a systematic review was conducted utilising the Medline and Embase search engines.

RESULTS

Through a comprehensive search of the last ten years, twenty-two studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes were identified as the most prevalent phyla of both breast tissue and skin in healthy controls and BD. High abundance of skin commensals, specifically some species of Staphylococcus, have been linked in breast cancer and metastases. Similarly, dysregulated microbial abundance is also seen in inflammatory and implant-associated BD. These findings raise the hypothesis that the skin microbiota plays a role in tissue homeostasis and may contribute to a range of breast pathologies. Several mechanisms of microbial transfer to underlying tissue have been proposed, including retrograde transfer through ductal systems, breakdown of the skin barrier, and migration through nipple-aspirate fluid.

CONCLUSION

Our review provides preliminary insights into the skin microbiota as a modifiable risk factor for BD. This raises opportunities for future studies in antimicrobials/probiotics as an adjunct to, or replacement of surgery; a diagnostic and/or prognostic tool for BD; and the possibility of conditioning the microbiota to manage BD.

In search for the 'perfect' breast implant: are textured implants still indicated in today's breast augmentation practice?

The popularity of breast augmentation procedure has driven research and debate as to whether any given implant characteristic offers a functional advantage. One such debate exists about the role of surface texturing. In the aftermath of the recent withdrawal of aggressively textured surfaces we would like to summarize the first author's experience of nearly 1500 primary aesthetic breast augmentations with different surfaces and offer our thoughts on this topic. All consecutive primary breast augmentations operated by the first author from January 2010 to June 2019 were included. All patients had silicone implants inserted via inframammary incision. Of all the operated cases, 1029 consecutive female patients had at least 6 months' follow-up (mean 15.1 months). Their mean age was 31.2 years, mean BMI 20.8 kg/m² and mean implant volume was 311 cc. 997(96.9%) patients had dual plane and 32(3.1%) had sub-glandular implant placement. In total 113 patients (11.0%) developed a complication. This represented 15.1% of those with round and 10.0% of anatomical shape (or 10.6% of textured and 14.5% of smooth surface implants). As clinicians, we like patients to receive all the advantages of an implant but not be exposed to any risks. However, in reality, such a 'perfect implant' still does not exist. New literature continues to shed light on this trade-off between an implant's perceived utility and its complications profile. We hope that the search for an alternative technology, with more beneficial surface characteristics and less drawbacks, continues.