Systematic review outlines best practices for a breast implant registry in Canada, suggesting funding models and data quality strategies.
Introduction: Use of breast implants has nearly doubled for reconstructive and aesthetic surgery throughout North America. This growing demand highlights the need for breast implant registries to monitor safety and quality of care. Despite wide adoption of implant registries in other countries, there is currently no Canadian system to track implantation of breast prostheses. This review aimed to inform the development and implementation of a Canadian breast implant registry (BIR). Methods: A systematic review was conducted to include searches of Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Embase Ovid and grey literature databases. Data were extracted for: patient participation, registry structure, data quality, funding and reporting outputs. Results: Of 1577 articles, a total of 19 met inclusion criteria. The Dutch, Australian, American, German, United Kingdom and Korean implant registries were analyzed. Opt-out systems were commonly used and correlated with higher capture rates. Data input relied on physician or surgeon data entry. Funding was private for the Dutch BIR through a patient or insurance surcharge, and government funding was used in the United Kingdom, Australian and Korean registries. Finally, all registries disseminated outcomes via annual reports. Conclusion: Based on strategies used in existing registries, it is recommended a Canadian BIR have an opt-out structure, funding from a combination of government or private stakeholders, use a standardized data set and annual reporting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rea et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: