The most common long-term complication of silicone breast implants (SMI) remains capsular fibrosis. The etiology of this exaggerated implant encapsulation is multifactorial but primarily induced by the host response towards the foreign material silicone. Identified risk factors included specific implant topographies. Of note, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), has only been observed in response to textured surface implants. We hypothesize that reduction of SMI surface roughness causes less host response hence better cosmetic outcome with fewer complications for the patient. A total of 7 patients received the routinely used CPX®4 breast expander (~60 µM Ra) and the novel SmoothSilk® (~ 4 µM Ra), fixed prepectoral with a titanised mesh pocket and randomized to the left or right breast after bilateral prophylactic NSME (nipple-sparing mastectomy). We aimed to compare the postoperative outcome regarding capsule thickness, seroma formation, rippling, implant dislocation as well as comfortability and practicability. Our analysis shows that surface roughness is an influential parameter in controlling fibrotic implant encapsulation. First time intra-individually compared in patients, our data confirm an improved biocompatibility with minor capsule formation around SmoothSilk® implants with an average shell roughness of 4 µM and in addition an amplification of host response by titanised implant pockets.

(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct the first comparative study providing long-term data about patient reported outcome measures as well as donor-site scar assessment and aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. Evaluation was done using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: Post-operative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories physical well-being donor-site, physical well-being breast and satisfaction with the breast. Scar evaluation of the donor-site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and the abdomen concerning the overall opinion of patients and observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results of donor-site morbidity, scar quality and aesthetic outcome of the breast in both the DIEP and PAP patient group have been demonstrated. Hence, in cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients’ lifestyle, leisure activities and preferences.