Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Hidalgo, David A. M.D.; Weinstein, Andrew L. M.D., M.S.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 587–596
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003114
Cosmetic: Original Articles
Discussion
Discussion
Watch Video
Journal Club
Podcast

Background: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.

Methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.

Results: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases.

Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

This and Related “Classic“ Articles Appear on Prsjournal.Com for Journal Club Discussions.

New York, N.Y.

From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College.

Received for publication June 25, 2016; accepted August 22, 2016.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

A “Hot Topic Video” by Editor-in-Chief Rod J. Rohrich, M.D., accompanies this article. Go to PRSJournal.com and click on “Plastic Surgery Hot Topics” in the “Digital Media” tab to watch. On the iPad, tap on the Hot Topics icon.

David A. Hidalgo, M.D., 655 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10065, dh@drdavidhidalgo.com

©2017American Society of Plastic Surgeons