Ambispective trial evaluates patient satisfaction and outcomes using conical implants for tuberous breast correction, suggesting feasibility.
Background and Objectives: Tuberous breast is a complex congenital deformity that requires correction of the underlying stenotic anatomy. Clinical evidence on the use of conical polyurethane implants in this setting is limited. To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction following correction of tuberous breast deformity using a standardized, implant-assisted reconstructive protocol with exclusive use of conical polyurethane implants. Materials and Methods: An ambispective study included 50 patients with tuberous breast deformity treated between 2020 and 2025 by two surgeons using a standardized implant-assisted reconstructive protocol. All patients underwent systematic glandular ring release and inframammary fold repositioning, followed by placement of conical polyurethane implants. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, and BREAST-Q Augmentation V2.0 scores. The mean follow-up was 17 months (range, 9–24 months). Results: The mean patient age was 29.8 years. According to the Grolleau classification, 62% of patients were type I, 30% type II, and 8% type III. The mean implant volume was 258.2 cc. Overall complication rate was 10%, including one case (2%) of capsular contracture secondary to infection, with a reoperation rate of 8%. Postoperative BREAST-Q scores showed high levels of patient satisfaction, with mean “satisfaction with breasts” scores of 90.1 ± 11.9 and 92.0 ± 9.7 at the first and second postoperative assessments, respectively. Conclusions: Within a standardized reconstructive protocol, conical polyurethane implants were associated with high postoperative patient satisfaction and acceptable complication rates during early-to-mid-term follow-up in the correction of tuberous breast deformity. These findings suggest that the use of conical polyurethane implants within a standardized reconstructive approach is feasible in selected cases. Further comparative studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
González-Prieto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: