Skip to main content
Log in

Objective Comparison of Commercially Available Breast Implant Devices

  • Review
  • Breast
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2014) Plastic Surgery Statistics Report, p 5

  2. 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):252–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 132:1115–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kinney BM, Jeffers LLC, Ratliff GE, Carlisle DA (2014) Silicone gel breast implants: science and testing. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:47S–56S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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–46S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Maxwell GP (2014) The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(1 Suppl):12S–17S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beekman WH (1999) Augmentation mammaplasty: the story before the silicone bag prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 43(4):446–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gersuny R (1903) Harte und weiche paraffinprothesen. Zentralbl Chir 30:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson M (2013) Breast implants: history, safety, and imaging. Radiol Technol 84(5):439M–515M

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwarzmann E (1937) Avoidance of nipple necrosis by preservation of corium in one-stage plastic surgery of breast. Rev Chir Struct 7:206–209

    Google Scholar 

  11. Glatt BS (1999) Long-term follow-up of a sponge breast implant and review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg 42(2):196–201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Brien J (1999) History of breast prostheses. Plast Surg Nurs 19(2):59–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hollander A (1912) Berliner Gesellschaft für Chirurgie 1912. Munch Med Wochenschr 59:2842

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bettmann H (1913) Uber Folgeerscheinungen subcutaner Paraffininjektionen. Berl Klin Wochenschr 22:1040–1041

    Google Scholar 

  15. Uroskie TW (2004) History of breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 18(2):65–69

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Locke MB, Lofts J (2015) Variable presentation of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in patients with breast implants. ANZ J Surg. doi:10.1111/ans.13074

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Monstrey S (2004) What exactly was wrong with the Trilucent breast implants? A unifying hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(3):847–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Puskas JE (2012) Breast implants: the good, the bad and the ugly. Can nanotechnology improve implants? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 4(2):153–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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–S55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter W. Henderson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henderson, P.W., Nash, D., Laskowski, M. et al. Objective Comparison of Commercially Available Breast Implant Devices. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 724–732 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0537-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0537-1

Keywords

Navigation