Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants: results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

  • J. Xavier Harmeling
  • , J. Juliët Vrolijk
  • , Erik Heeg
  • , Babette E. Becherer
  • , Hinne A. Rakhorst
  • , Eveline M.L. Corten
  • , Marta Fiocco
  • , Marc A.M. Mureau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after mastectomy. Breast implants are categorized by surface type as smooth, textured, or polyurethane-covered, each with specific attributed advantages and complication profiles. High-quality comparative studies are, however, limited. This study compared revision incidence and indications for revision among these implant types. Methods: A prospective, nationwide cohort from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry was analysed. Permanent implants used between 2017 and 2022 for direct-to-implant or two-stage reconstruction were included. Surface-related revision was the primary outcome. Cumulative incidences were estimated using a competing risk model. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRcs) were calculated using univariable and multivariable models, accounting for implant clustering and confounders. Subgroup analyses examined revisions for specific complications. Results: Of 3996 implants, 76.9% were textured, 12.4% smooth, and 10.8% polyurethane-covered. At 4 years, the cumulative incidence of revision surgeries did not differ between textured (11.1%; 95% c.i. = 9.9 to 12.5), smooth (13.0%; 95% c.i. = 8.5 to 18.4), and polyurethane-covered (16.1%; 95% c.i. = 12.4 to 20.2) implants. Multivariable analysis found no association between surface type and surface-related revision. Subgroup analysis however revealed that polyurethane-covered implants had increased hazards of revision for capsular contracture (HRcs = 2.49; 95% c.i. = 1.24 to 5.01) and asymmetry (HRcs = 2.31; 95% c.i. = 1.33 to 4.02). Conclusion: After adjusting for confounders and clustering, surface-related revision in a reconstructive setting did not significantly different among breast implant surface types overall. Polyurethane-covered implants may, however, require more revisions due to capsular contracture and asymmetry.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberznaf082
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume112
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2025

Keywords

  • Prospective Studies
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Breast Implants/adverse effects
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Reoperation/statistics & numerical data
  • Polyurethanes
  • Breast Implantation/methods
  • Incidence
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Breast Neoplasms/surgery
  • Surface Properties
  • Postoperative Complications/surgery
  • Mastectomy
  • Female
  • Registries
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Netherlands/epidemiology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants: results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this