Montemurro P, et al. – In this work, a review was performed of the first author’s experience over the last six years with both round and anatomical implants, compared the rate of complications with either implant shape, and discussed the importance of keeping an open mind about using both implant shapes for primary breast augmentation. It was realized that a single, ideal implant that is suitable for every primary breast augmentation did not exist. Researchers recommended making optimum choice of implant shape in any given situation by considering the patient’s physical characteristics, available implant types, patient’s desires, and the surgeon’s experience. Together with round implants, they suggested considering anatomical devices as one of the tools in the surgeon’s toolbox. They realized that By choosing to ignore them a priori means that the surgeon would only have access to half of his armamentarium and would, therefore, be able to offer a limited set of options to his patients.

Methods

• Researchers performed a review of all consecutive primary breast augmentation patients by the first author over a six-year time period who had a minimum follow up of 6 months after surgery.

Results

• Over the six-year period, 648 female patients had 1296 silicone breast implants inserted.
• At surgery, mean age was 30.5 years and mean BMI was 20.6 kg/m².
• In this study, all implants were textured, 134 (in 67 patients, 10.3%) were round in shape with mean volume of 338 cc (range, 220-560 cc), while 1162 implants (in 581 patients, 89.7%) were anatomical shaped with a mean volume of 309 cc (range, 140-615 cc).
• Among these patients, postoperative complications were encountered in 11.9% (n = 8) with round implants and 9.0% (n = 52) of those with anatomical implants.