TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of revision surgery after implant-based breast reconstruction between smooth, textured, and polyurethane-covered implants
T2 - results from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry
AU - Harmeling, J. Xavier
AU - Vrolijk, J. Juliët
AU - Heeg, Erik
AU - Becherer, Babette E.
AU - Rakhorst, Hinne A.
AU - Corten, Eveline M.L.
AU - Fiocco, Marta
AU - Mureau, Marc A.M.
N1 - © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.
PY - 2025/5/1
Y1 - 2025/5/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Breast Implants/adverse effects
KW - Prosthesis Design
KW - Reoperation/statistics & numerical data
KW - Polyurethanes
KW - Breast Implantation/methods
KW - Incidence
KW - Prosthesis Failure
KW - Breast Neoplasms/surgery
KW - Surface Properties
KW - Postoperative Complications/surgery
KW - Mastectomy
KW - Female
KW - Registries
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Netherlands/epidemiology
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105005540577
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/c30b17a8-58f7-38cf-8463-7ba7c1bba15f/
U2 - 10.1093/bjs/znaf082
DO - 10.1093/bjs/znaf082
M3 - Article
C2 - 40380859
AN - SCOPUS:105005540577
SN - 0007-1323
VL - 112
JO - British Journal of Surgery
JF - British Journal of Surgery
IS - 5
M1 - znaf082
ER -