Anatomic “shaped” implants and rotation

First, let me say I, like the majority of my colleagues who do a lot of breast implants, primarily use round smooth implants. 

Anatomic implants have been talked about a lot recently at our meetings.  The style 410 gummy bear implant is not available in the US.  Even when it does become available (which I have stopped holding my breath for… it is now 3 years and counting), I don’t know it will be the workhorse of breast augmentation.

Why do I like round implants? For a multitude of reasons: I get a great shape; round implants move (which I feel makes them look and feel more natural); I saw a lot of issues with the textured shaped implants during my residency (shaped implants were all the rage in the mid 90s) with wrinkles and fold failure causing leakage; and a MRI study showed when placed behind the muscle there is little to no shape advantage of the shaped implant versus round implant. 

The last issue? Rotation.

A study came out in July issue of PRS about the style 510 (the next generation after the 410) and the investigators found an 8% malrotation rate.  As they say, “anatomic prostheses are asymmetrically shaped, which can lead to a severe deformity of the breast profile when rotation around one of the axes occurs.”  In English, that means when a shaped implant rotates, it doesn’t look pretty.

Theories about why malposition occurs?

• The implant surface (more texturing is better),
• the pocket.  (type of pocket? width?),
• the tissue (thin skin can stretch out the pocket and allow lateral migration and then rotation),
• excessive movement, particularly when healing
• no friction (caused by fluid or double capsule)
• capsular contracture. 

Some of the issues may be surgery related.  You can’t overdissect the lateral pocket, and want a pocket to be taller than it is wide.  Large implants, particularly in thin patients with poor cover, rotate more.

Bottom line: Anatomic implants have issues.  This study was done in the Netherlands.  Europeans have access to the style 410 gummy bear and have used it for years.  Plastic surgeons fall on both sides of the fence when it comes to shaped versus round implants.  My mentor for my breast fellowship really likes the 410, but he as an investigator is one of the only guys who can use them, and his practice is almost all difficult revisions of prior breast augmentations, where he is making neopockets, using dermal matrix products, and using shaped implants.  Before restrictions occurred, some of my colleagues doing uncomplicated first time breast augmentation patients were able to use the 410.  Many of these colleagues didn’t like them and went back to using round implants.  So you will find much controversy on this subject. 

I think, as with all things plastic surgical, you will find the anatomic implant is the “right” choice for a certain patient population.  But which patients are those patients? I don’t know yet.  Perhaps rib cage shape? migration issues? no tissue cover? capsular contracture issues? breast cancer?  Regardless, until the 410 is available in the US, I will stick with my current recommendations.  I get great results with the round smooth gels. And the result, your happiness with a pretty breast, is what matters.