Transitioning From Conventional Textured to Nanotextured Breast Implants: Our Early Experience and Modifications for Optimal Breast Augmentation Outcomes

Abstract Background Nanotextured breast implants were hailed as an innovation that may address capsular contracture and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and may provide the sweet spot between smooth and conventional textured implants. Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the introduction of nanotextured implants alongside conventional textured implants and to compare early complications. Methods Patients who underwent breast augmentation from the introduction of nanotextured implants in the author’s practice with at least 1 year of follow-up were included. They were divided into nanotextured and conventional textured implant groups and then into 3 chronological subgroups. Patient characteristics, implant specifications, operative factors, and complication rates were compared. Results A total 415 cases with a mean follow-up of 26.9 months were identified, of which 38.8% utilized nanotextured implants and 61.2% conventional textured implants. Utilization of nanotextured implants increased from 26.9% in period 1 to 54.5% in period 3. Complication rates for the conventional textured group were 0.8% at 1 year and 3.5% on overall follow-up, with mostly capsular contractures; for the nanotextured group, complication rates were 6.8% and 8.7%, respectively, and “bottoming out” was most common. When analyzed across chronological subgroups, complication rates decreased for nanotextured implants by period 3. Conclusions A learning curve and associated complications are expected for early adopters of new implants. In our series, nanotextured implants were associated with higher complication rates at 1 year and on overall follow-up. Modifications in patient selection, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative care reduced complications in the later period. Level of Evidence: 4