Capsular contracture is the most common complication of breast augmentation,25 typically presenting within the first postoperative year,26,27 and the risk increases over time.28 It occurs with both silicone and saline breast implants.
In some studies, the incidence exceeded 4% in the first 2 years after surgery,29 and nearly 50% by 10 years.30 Other studies found rates of 0% to 20% over 13 years.20
The etiology is not well understood and is presumed to be multifactorial, with proposed mechanisms and factors that include bacterial contamination, surface texturing, the implant pocket selected, the incision type, drain placement, antibiotic use, and smoking.25
A meta-analysis from 17,000 implants found that the risk of capsular contracture was significantly higher when an implant was placed in a subglandular pocket than in a submuscular pocket,22,26 and that although texturing decreased capsular contracture compared with smooth implants, the effect was modest when a textured or smooth implant was placed in a submuscular location.28 With regard to incision location, studies have reported that the incidence of capsular contracture is highest with transaxillary and periareolar incisions, and lowest with inframammary incisions.20,21
The leading theory is that contamination of the implant (primarily from the mammary ducts) results in biofilm formation. Subclinical hematoma surrounding the implant may also provide key bacterial nutrients.20
Textured implants induce a greater inflammatory response in the capsular tissue, resulting in a thicker capsule; however, contracture rates remain lower with textured than with smooth implants.14,31 Interestingly, lower rates of capsular contracture have been observed with later-generation, cohesive-gel, form-stable implants than with those of earlier generations.12
Although more research is needed, silicone implants appear to confer a higher risk of capsular contracture than saline implants.14,20
Irrigating the breast pocket intraoperatively with triple antibiotic solution (bacitracin, cefazolin, and gentamicin) before placing the implant may decrease the capsular contracture rate.15,20
Treatments for capsular contracture include pocket modifications such as capsulotomy (making releasing, relaxing incisions in the scar capsule encasing the implant), capsulectomy (removing portions of or the entire capsule), and replacing the implant in the other pocket (ie, if the original implant was subglandular, the replacement is placed in the submuscular pocket). Patients who have contractures that fail to respond to these treatments may ultimately benefit from implant removal and autologous reconstruction (autoaugmentation) rather than implant replacement.32,33
Other complications include infection, malposition, rippling, seroma, hematoma, and sensory alterations.
Irrigation during the implantation procedure with a triple antibiotic solution consisting of bacitracin, gentamycin, and cephalexin in normal saline decreases infection and seroma rates.15,20,34
Some surgeons also choose to irrigate the pocket with a betadine solution, or to cleanse the skin with betadine and place sterile towels and redrape before inserting the implant. Additionally, many prefer using a sterile device much like a pastry funnel called a Keller funnel to insert the implant into the breast pocket.35
Infection is less common with cosmetic augmentations than with implant-based breast reconstruction, likely because of healthier, well-vascularized tissue in patients undergoing cosmetic surgery than in those undergoing mastectomy.14
Seroma is thought to be a consequence of texturing, and more so with macro- vs microtexturing. Though poorly understood, an association between texturing and double capsules has also been reported.12,20
After primary breast augmentation, 10-year follow-up rates of capsular contracture, seroma, rippling, and malposition vary across the 3 major silicone implant manufacturers.12 Hematoma and infection occur in less than 1% of primary augmentation patients.15
Malposition of the implant over time is less frequent with textured implants because of the higher coefficient of friction compared with smooth implants.6,8,15
Visible skin rippling may be a consequence of texturing and also of thin body habitus, eg, in patients with a body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m2. If the soft-tissue layer of the breast is thin, the natural rippling of smooth saline implant shells are more likely to show when placed in the subglandular pocket. Form-stable implants, by contrast, resist rippling.12,15
Large implants and extensive lateral dissection can cause alterations in nipple sensation and sensory loss within lower breast pole skin. Axillary incisions may traumatize or damage the intercostobrachial nerve, resulting in upper inner arm sensory aberrations.
Ultimately, the 10-year incidence of secondary surgery ranges from 0% to 36% and the 10-year incidence of capsular contracture ranges from 11% to 19%.15 Additional cosmetic complaints after augmentation with implants include enlargement of the areola and engorgement of breast veins.14
BREAST CANCER AND DETECTION
Patients with or without implants do not seem to differ with regard to breast cancer stage upon detection, tumor burden, recurrence, or survival. However, more patients with implants may present with palpable masses, invasive tumors, axillary metastasis, and falsely negative mammograms.
Breast implants may actually facilitate cancer detection on physical examination by providing a more dense or stable surface upon which to palpate the breast tissue. Although they do not necessarily impair mastectomy or breast reconstruction, they may result in an increased rate of revision surgery after breast conservation therapy.24,36 Mammography remains the standard of care for radiologic diagnosis but can be further supported by MRI and ultrasonography if necessary in patients with implants.