IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Breast Implants: Core Study Results at 6 Years

Nichter, Larry S.; Hardesty, Robert A.; Anigian, Gregg M.

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000004460

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Saline implants do not have a natural feel because movement of the saline filler is rapidly displaced with motion. Because the implant shell is unsupported, the upper pole collapses when upright and the shell tends to wrinkle 14 …”

Section: Saline Breast Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The silicone gel implant has a natural feel because the viscosity of the silicone gel filler mimics the breast tissue. The cross‐linked silicone gel supports the implant shell, so there is less upper pole collapse when upright and less wrinkling compared with the saline implant 14 …”

Section: Silicone Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasing the fill volume in the outer lumen of the structured implant increases support for the shell, so there is even less upper pole collapse when upright. As its unique design and technology are different from saline and silicone gel implants, the structured implant is a third type of breast implant 14 …”

Section: Structured (Ideal) Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The evolution of breast prostheses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every year approximately 1.5 million prostheses are implanted worldwide for breast augmentation and reconstructive indications. 1 The history of implant-based breast reconstruction spans three centuries with the first report of successful breast augmentation in 1895, in which Czerny 2 described transplanting a lipoma from the trunk to the breast in a patient deformed by a partial mastectomy. In 1889, Gersuny attempted breast reconstruction with paraffin injections although with disastrous results. 3 In the first half of the 20th century, surgeons employed other materials and prostheses as breast fillers and implants, respectively, such as ivory, glass balls, ground rubber, ox cartilage, Terylene wool, gutta-percha […]. 4 During the 1950s and 1960s, breast augmentation with solid alloplastic materials was performed using polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), and expanded polyvinyl alcohol formaldehyde (Ivalon sponge). 5 However, the use of these materials was discontinued after patients developed local tissue reactions, firmness, distortion of the breast, and significant discomfort. 6 In 1961, Uchida reported the injection of liquid silicone (polydimethylsiloxane [PDMS]) for breast augmentation. 6 Various other solid and semisolid materials have been injected directly into the breast parenchyma for augmentation, including epoxy resin, shellac, beeswax, paraffin, and petroleum jelly. 7 These techniques resulted in frequent complications, including recurrent infections, chronic inflammation, drainage, granuloma formation, and even necrosis. 8 Breast augmentation by injection of free liquid silicone and

show abstract

Section: Saline Breast Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Silicone Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evolution of breast prostheses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the structured IDEAL IMPLANT is saline-filled, it is a distinctly different type of implant than unstructured single-lumen saline-filled implants or silicone gel-filled implants, making it a third type of breast implant [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Evaluation Procedure for Multi-Dimensional Mechanical Strains and Tangent Moduli of Breast Implants: IDEAL IMPLANT® Structured Breast Implant Compared to Silicone Gel Implants

Brandon

Nichter

Back³

2019

Bioengineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The IDEAL IMPLANT® Structured Breast Implant is a dual lumen saline-filled implant with capsular contracture and deflation/rupture rates much lower than single-lumen silicone gel-filled implants. To better understand the implant’s mechanical properties and to provide a potential explanation for these eight-year clinical results, a novel approach to compressive load testing was employed. Multi-dimensional strains and tangent moduli, metrics describing the shape stability of the total implant, were derived from the experimental load and platen spacing data. The IDEAL IMPLANT was found to have projection, diametric, and areal strains that were generally less than silicone gel implants, and tangent moduli that were generally greater than silicone gel implants. Despite having a relatively inviscid saline fill, the IDEAL IMPLANT was found to be more shape stable compared to gel implants, which implies potentially less interaction with the capsule wall when the implant is subjected to compressive loads. Under compressive loads, the shape stability of a higher cross-link density, cohesive gel implant was unexpectedly found to be similar to or the same as a gel implant. In localized diametric compression testing, the IDEAL IMPLANT was found to have a palpability similar to a gel implant, but softer than a cohesive gel implant.

show abstract

“…1). [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Several studies published about 4 decades ago reported capsular contracture rates in the range of 27-40% after breast augmentation. [24][25][26][27][28][29] This spike in capsular contracture rates was caused by leak-prone thin-shelled second generation implants inserted in the 1970s, which almost always ruptured within a decade of insertion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%