Smooth vs Textured Expanders: Patient Factors and Anatomic Plane Are Greater Factors in Determining First-Stage Breast Reconstruction Outcomes.

[BACKGROUND] Textured implants and expanders are associated with an increased risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). As a result, plastic surgeons are utilizing smooth expanders, but many perceive these produce undesirable outcomes including infection, seroma, and lateral displacement.

[OBJECTIVES] The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of smooth and textured expanders.

[METHODS] Breast reconstruction patients from January 2018 to May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Included patients underwent placement of tissue expanders at the time of mastectomy. Primary outcomes included postoperative seroma, infection, malposition, days to final reconstruction, explantation, and the need for capsulorrhaphy.

[RESULTS] In total, 233 patients were reviewed, of whom 167 met both inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in poor outcomes comparing smooth and textured expanders. Days to final reconstruction was lower with smooth expanders per breast (P = .0424). The subpectoral group was associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing capsulorrhaphy (P = .004). Prepectoral placement was associated with more seromas (P = .0176) and infections (P = .0245). Demographic factors included older age as a protective factor for undergoing capsulorrhaphy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.962, P = .038), obesity increased the risk of infection (OR = 5.683, P = .0279) and malposition (OR = 6.208, P = .0222), and radiation was associated with malposition (OR = 3.408, P = .0246).

[CONCLUSIONS] There was no significant difference in poor outcomes between smooth and textured expanders. Patient demographics and anatomical plane placement had greater effects on infection, seroma, and the need for capsulorrhaphy compared with tissue expander texturing.