Title:  Clinical Experience with Mentor Contour Profile MemoryGel Breast Implants: A Single Institution’s Experience with 99 Consecutive Patients

Background:

The Mentor Contour Profile MemoryGel breast implant is a shaped, form stable gel implant with increased gel cross-linking and aggressive Siltex texturing.   Published studies involving the CPG implants show a trend towards better clinical outcomes and a decreased capsular contracture rate.

Objective:

The purpose of this study is to report a single institution’s clinical experience with Mentor Contour Profile Gel form stable breast implants.

Methods: 

A total of 99 patients (198 implants) were enrolled prospectively over a 42 month period as part of the Mentor Corporation Contour Profile Gel Continued Access Study.  All breast implant surgeries were performed by the senior surgeon (WGS) or his associate (DAS) at the same ambulatory surgery center.  Mean follow up time was 17 months.  Informed consent and IRB approval was obtained.  Information was collected on patient demographics, implant factors, surgical approach, and complications and revisions.   Fishers exact test was used to compare groups with respect to differences in complication rates and revisions.   

Results /complications:

The average patient age in this study was 36 years (range 18 to 63).  Four percent of patients were reported smokers.  Implant sizes ranged from 165-680 cc, with a median size of 330 cc and average implant size of 348cc.   Eighty one percent of surgeries were primary augmentations, 12% were primary mastopexy augmentations, 6% were secondary augmentations and 1% were secondary breast reconstruction (n=1).  Seventy nine percent of implants were placed via inframammary incisions, 8% placed through periareolar incisions, 12% placed via mastopexy incisions and 1% placed through prior mastectomy incision.  Ninety nine percent of implants were placed submuscularly (with inferior-medial release of the pectoralis major muscle from the inframammary fold).  No capsular contractures, implant rotation or malpositions were observed.  Reoperation rate was 4% (n=4).  Two patients requested explantation within 3 months of surgery and did not have further implants placed.  Two patients desired revision mastopexy (one patient experienced delayed wound healing and requested scar revision, one patient requested revision mastopexy and scar revision).  One patient experienced a unilateral cellulitis which resolved with oral antibiotics.   

Conclusion:  This study demonstrates that Mentor form-stable silicone gel Contour Profile Gel implants are safe and have a complication profile at our institution which is lower than reported rates for saline or other silicone gel breast implants.  No capsular contractures or implant rotations have been observed as well as no reports of wrinkling or rippling or firmness.  The implants can be placed safely through the inframammary incision or periareolar incisions.  Therefore, Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants are a safe option for breast augmentation and reconstructive surgery and may offer patients superior outcomes compared to published data with saline or silicone gel implants.