Comprehensive comparison between shaped versus round implants for breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Prosthetic breast reconstruction has been gaining popularity and a variety of implant options are currently available. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of newly developed shaped implants compared with those of conventional round implants. To date, few studies have investigated the outcomes of breast reconstruction with shaped versus round implants. Objectives: The present study aimed to comprehensively compare, via meta-analytic methodology, shaped and round breast implant reconstruction in terms of complication profiles and aesthetic satisfaction. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies presenting the complication rates for shaped and round implant groups. The relative risks of the following complications between the groups were calculated: infection, seroma, capsular contracture, rupture, rippling, reconstruction failure, and implant exchange or removal. Outcomes of aesthetic satisfaction included aesthetic results and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Meta-analysis of 8 retrospective cohort studies, representing 2490 cases of implant-based breast reconstruction, was performed. There were no significant differences in the risks of infection, seroma, capsular contracture, and reconstruction failure between the 2 groups. The risks of implant rupture and rippling were significantly reduced with shaped implants. In a subgroup analysis of shaped/textured and round/smooth implants, the risk of infection was significantly enhanced in the former, whereas incidences of other complications, including capsular contracture and reconstruction failure, were similar. Aesthetic satisfaction analysis of the 2 groups demonstrated similar outcome scores with favorable overall results. Conclusions: Our results suggest that both shaped and round implants might provide favorable breast reconstruction outcomes with similarly low complication rates and aesthetic results. Level of Evidence: 4: