Characteristics of adhesion areas between the tissue expander and capsule in implant-based breast reconstruction

Background The use of anatomic implants has improved the aesthetic results of breast surgery; however, implant malrotation is an uncommon, but serious complication of these procedures. Nevertheless, little research has explored implant adhesion. In this study, we investigated adhesion between the expander and the capsule.

Methods Seventy-nine cases of immediate breast reconstruction via two-stage implantbased reconstruction performed between September 2016 and November 2017 were evaluated. Mentor CPX4 expanders were used in 14 breasts, and Natrelle expanders in 65. We analyzed areas of adhesion on the surfaces of the tissue expanders when they were exchanged with permanent implants. We investigated whether adhesions occurred on the cephalic, caudal, anterior, and/or posterior surfaces of the expanders.

Results Total adhesion occurred in 18 cases, non-adhesion in 15 cases, and partial adhesion in 46 cases. Of the non-adhesion cases, 80% (n=12) were with Mentor CPX4 expanders, while 94.4% (n=17) of the total adhesion cases were with Natrelle expanders. Of the partial adhesion cases, 90.7% involved the anterior-cephalic surface. The type of tissue expander showed a statistically significant relationship with the number of attachments in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (P<0.001) and with total drainage only in the univariate analysis (P=0.015).

Conclusions We sought to identify the location(s) of adhesion after tissue expander insertion. The texture of the implant was a significant predictor of the success of adhesion, and partial adhesion was common. The anterior-cephalic surface showed the highest adhesion rate. Nevertheless, partial adhesion suffices to prevent unwanted rotation of the expander.

Keywords

Mammaplasty - Breast implants - Breast implantation - Rotation - Tissue expansion devices

Publication History

Received: 28 April 2018

Accepted: 29 May 2019

Article published online:
28 March 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D. et al. Aesthetic breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002; 26: 429-35
• 2 Baeke JL. Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109: 2555-64
• 3 Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA. Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116: 768-79
• 4 Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M. Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 2001; 28: 531-52
• 5 Hahn M, Kuner RP, Scheler P. et al. Sonographic criteria for the confirmation of implant rotation and the development of an implant-capsule-interaction (“interface”) in anatomically formed textured breast implants with texturised Biocell-surface. Senologie-Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und-therapie 2009; 6: 48-53
• 6 Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA. et al. Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 1381-91
• 7 Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK. et al. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32: 709-17
• 8 Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S. et al. Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34: 876-81
• 9 Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP. et al. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35: 145-55
• 10 Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK. et al. Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 7 Suppl 1 40S-48S
• 11 Cunningham B. The Mentor study on Contour Profile Gel silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 120: 33S-39S
• 12 Montemurro P, Papas A, Heden P. Is Rotation a concern with anatomical breast implants? A statistical analysis of factors predisposing to rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139: 1367-78
• 13 Heitmann C, Schreckenberger C, Olbrisch RR. A silicone implant filled with cohesive gel: advantages and disadvantages. Eur J Plast Surg 1998; 21: 329-32
• 14 Brink RR. Sequestered fluid and breast implant malposition. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98: 679-84
• 15 Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D. Rotation of anatomic prostheses: a possible cause of breast deformity. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004; 28: 348-53
• 16 Sampaio Goes JC. Breast implant stability in the subfascial plane and the new shaped silicone gel breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34: 23-8
• 17 Pandya AN, Dickson MG. Capsule within a capsule: an unusual entity. Br J Plast Surg 2002; 55: 455-6
• 18 Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR. et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 695-705
• 19 Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australian Government. Breast implants: update on TGA monitoring of anaplastic large cell lymphoma [Internet]. Symonston: TGA; 2017. [cited 2019 Jun 27]. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/breast-implants-update-tga-monitoring-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma
• 20 Barone FE, Perry L, Keller T. et al. The biomechanical and histopathologic effects of surface texturing with silicone and polyurethane in tissue implantation and expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 90: 77-86
• 21 Smahel J, Hurwitz PJ, Hurwitz N. Soft tissue response to textured silicone implants in an animal experiment. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 92: 474-9
• 22 Derby BM, Codner MA. Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data update and review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 113-24
• 23 Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S. et al. Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108: 2047-52