Do the new form stable Inamed 410 breast implants provide a tangible health benefit over the current generation of silicone implants? Recommendations for above / below the muscle implant placement if I have sufficient coverage, but am worried about capsular contracture risk?
New Inamed 410 Breast Implants More Advantageous?
Doctor Answers (2)
Depends upon how you define "health benefit"...
From what we know today, saline, silicone, and form stable silicone breast implants such as the Natrelle 410 have no effect on your health per se. All issues with these implants are related not to the health of your body as a whole, but rather to the look and feel of your breasts. Therefore, you should not look at this implant as having a health benefit, as standard implants have no documented health detriment.
However, the chances of needing a second operation in the first 5 years after receiving a 410 implant is 13.9%, which is lower than any implant ever studied at that interval. So if you define health benefit as reducing your chance of undergoing the risks of a second surgery, then there is a benefit. Even the risk of a capsulr contracture is 75% lower with these implants than with other silicone implants made by the same manufacturer.
The real benefits of these implants are improved control of breast shape, near-total freedom from implant folds, and longevity of the implant. Perhaps most profound of all, is that patients report an improved peace-of-mind resulting from their perception of the strength and durability of the implant.
Of course there are also trade-offs. They are not yet FDA approved, being available only in small numbers in clinical trials (hopefully they will be widely available before too long.) They are a bit firmer, though this is something that seems to only be noticed by women with looser and more mobile breasts; in fact, the implant is more similar to the consistency of young and firm breasts than standard implants. But this is an issue for patients to sort out individually with their surgeon.
Though the shape - thin at the top and thick at the bottom - can be more attractive in some cases than a round implant - if the implant were to rotate in the body it can create a distortion of appearance. This is a very rare phenomenon, but one that must be considered.
These implants also create some limitations as to which incisions should be used and the incisions often need to be a bit longer than with standard gel implants.
I've used hundreds of them and have to say that I love them. When someone in my staff sorted out my best results for a lecture not knowing which implants were used, all of her favorite picks were with this implant. But they are not right for all patients and all surgeons. Good luck with your research.
Not really a "health" benefit
The yet to be released 410 or form stable gel implants are more cohesive or firmer than current silicone gel implants with the goal being to have less likelihood of visible or palpable rippling. Both implants are not designed to be lifetime devices and as such may develope a crack in the outer shell ov er the course of years. The FDA approved the currently used gel implants after 14 years of study and they are not felt to be unsafe for the patients. Placing an implant partially under the muscle further isolates it from the breast tissue which in theory has bacteria associated with it. This is why a sub-muscular implant is touted as yielding less of a risk of capsular contracture. I prefer partially under the muscle but every case should be evaluated and treated individually. Best of luck.