Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 5/2015

01-10-2015 | Review

Objective Comparison of Commercially Available Breast Implant Devices

Authors: Peter W. Henderson, David Nash, Marta Laskowski, Robert T. Grant

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 5/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Breast implants are frequently used for both cosmetic breast augmentation and breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Three companies currently offer FDA-approved breast implants (Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra), but their product offerings—including permanent breast implants, breast tissue expanders, sizers, and post-operative warranty—can be difficult to compare because of brand names and company-specific jargon. The ability to have a brand-agnostic understanding of all available options is important for both the surgical trainee as well as the surgeon in clinical practice. After a brief review of the history of breast implant devices, this review utilizes a unique conceptual framework based on variables such as fill material, shape, relative dimensions, and surface coating to facilitate a better understanding of the similarities and differences between the different company’s offerings. Specifically, we identify which types of devices are offered by all three companies, those that are offered by only one company, those that have very limited product offerings, and those combinations that are not available at all. Finally, clinical implications are drawn from this framework that can be used by both cosmetic and reconstructive surgeons to counsel patients about all available options. Importantly, this project is entirely independent of any company’s funding, support, or input.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literature
1.
go back to reference American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2014) Plastic Surgery Statistics Report, p 5 American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2014) Plastic Surgery Statistics Report, p 5
2.
go back to reference Kalaaji A, Bjertness CB, Nordahl C, Olafsen K (2013) Survey of breast implant patients: characteristics, depression rate, and quality of life. Aesthet Surg J 33(2):252–257CrossRefPubMed Kalaaji A, Bjertness CB, Nordahl C, Olafsen K (2013) Survey of breast implant patients: characteristics, depression rate, and quality of life. Aesthet Surg J 33(2):252–257CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, Coehn R, d’Incelli RC, Bechstrand M (2013) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1115–1123CrossRefPubMed Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, Coehn R, d’Incelli RC, Bechstrand M (2013) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1115–1123CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kinney BM, Jeffers LLC, Ratliff GE, Carlisle DA (2014) Silicone gel breast implants: science and testing. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:47S–56SCrossRefPubMed Kinney BM, Jeffers LLC, Ratliff GE, Carlisle DA (2014) Silicone gel breast implants: science and testing. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:47S–56SCrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Haws MJ, Schwartz MR, Berger LH, Daulton KL (2014) Sientra portfolio of silimed brand shaped implants with high-strength silicone gel: a 5-year primary augmentation clinical study experience and a postapproval experience—results from a single-surgeon 108-patient series. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:38S–46SCrossRefPubMed Haws MJ, Schwartz MR, Berger LH, Daulton KL (2014) Sientra portfolio of silimed brand shaped implants with high-strength silicone gel: a 5-year primary augmentation clinical study experience and a postapproval experience—results from a single-surgeon 108-patient series. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:38S–46SCrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
go back to reference Beekman WH (1999) Augmentation mammaplasty: the story before the silicone bag prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 43(4):446–451CrossRefPubMed Beekman WH (1999) Augmentation mammaplasty: the story before the silicone bag prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 43(4):446–451CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Gersuny R (1903) Harte und weiche paraffinprothesen. Zentralbl Chir 30:1–5 Gersuny R (1903) Harte und weiche paraffinprothesen. Zentralbl Chir 30:1–5
9.
go back to reference Johnson M (2013) Breast implants: history, safety, and imaging. Radiol Technol 84(5):439M–515MPubMed Johnson M (2013) Breast implants: history, safety, and imaging. Radiol Technol 84(5):439M–515MPubMed
10.
go back to reference Schwarzmann E (1937) Avoidance of nipple necrosis by preservation of corium in one-stage plastic surgery of breast. Rev Chir Struct 7:206–209 Schwarzmann E (1937) Avoidance of nipple necrosis by preservation of corium in one-stage plastic surgery of breast. Rev Chir Struct 7:206–209
11.
go back to reference Glatt BS (1999) Long-term follow-up of a sponge breast implant and review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg 42(2):196–201PubMed Glatt BS (1999) Long-term follow-up of a sponge breast implant and review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg 42(2):196–201PubMed
13.
go back to reference Hollander A (1912) Berliner Gesellschaft für Chirurgie 1912. Munch Med Wochenschr 59:2842 Hollander A (1912) Berliner Gesellschaft für Chirurgie 1912. Munch Med Wochenschr 59:2842
14.
go back to reference Bettmann H (1913) Uber Folgeerscheinungen subcutaner Paraffininjektionen. Berl Klin Wochenschr 22:1040–1041 Bettmann H (1913) Uber Folgeerscheinungen subcutaner Paraffininjektionen. Berl Klin Wochenschr 22:1040–1041
17.
go back to reference Monstrey S (2004) What exactly was wrong with the Trilucent breast implants? A unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(3):847–856CrossRefPubMed Monstrey S (2004) What exactly was wrong with the Trilucent breast implants? A unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(3):847–856CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Puskas JE (2012) Breast implants: the good, the bad and the ugly. Can nanotechnology improve implants? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 4(2):153–168CrossRefPubMed Puskas JE (2012) Breast implants: the good, the bad and the ugly. Can nanotechnology improve implants? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 4(2):153–168CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Zeidler KR, Berkowitz RL, Chun YS et al (2014) AeroForm patient controlled tissue expansion and saline tissue expansion for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 72:S51–S55CrossRefPubMed Zeidler KR, Berkowitz RL, Chun YS et al (2014) AeroForm patient controlled tissue expansion and saline tissue expansion for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 72:S51–S55CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Objective Comparison of Commercially Available Breast Implant Devices
Authors
Peter W. Henderson
David Nash
Marta Laskowski
Robert T. Grant
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0537-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 5/2015 Go to the issue