An extended 7-year review of textured breast implants for primary breast augmentation: Allergan® versus Mentor®

Serena V. Martin, Weiguang Ho, Khalid Kha


Background: Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures worldwide. Textured implants are used widely throughout Europe and in the United States. The senior author uses both Allergan® and Mentor® implants. We discuss our long term follow up in the light of the withdrawal of textured Allergan® implants amidst safety concerns regarding breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
Methods: Data was collected on all primary bilateral breast augmentations (BBA) performed by the senior author over a 7-year period. Early and late post-operative outcomes were gathered throughout an extended follow up period and were compared between implant manufacturers.
Results: A total of 172 primary augmentations were performed. All implants used were textured. Allergan® implants were placed in 103 patients (60%) and 69 patients had Mentor® (40%). Dual plane was the commonest pocket type (89%) and 94% were round implants. The overall haematoma rate was 1%. Capsular contraction rate was 2% with all 3 cases in patients with Allergan® implants. Rupture rate was 3% overall but 5% in the Allergan® group and 1% in the Mentor® group. Two patients developed a late seroma but no patient had a confirmed diagnosis of BIA-ALCL during follow up.
Conclusions: The most concerning complications following augmentation are capsular contracture, implant rupture and the development of BIA-ALCL. We have shown low rates of these complications with both Allergan and Mentor. The majority are even lower than rates quoted in original trials. We discuss the recent withdrawal of Allergan textured implants as well as the most recent information on BIA-ALCL.