"Ergonomix vs. Round Implants: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Aesthetic Outcomes and Long-Term Follow-up in Breast Surgery".

Abstract

Breast implant shape influences final aesthetic outcomes, yet direct comparisons remain limited. Anatomical implants offer natural results but have associated risks, while round implants provide fullness with fewer complications. This study assesses whether experienced surgeons can distinguish between Motiva Round and Ergonomix implants postoperatively. Twenty patients undergoing primary subfascial breast augmentation were randomly assigned to receive either Motiva Round or Ergonomix implants. Standardized surgical techniques were applied, and postoperative evaluations occurred at 6 and 18 months, conducted by blinded independent assessors analyzing shape, contour, and symmetry. Statistical tests included Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and inter-rater reliability, with significance set at p<0.05. Patients had a mean age of 24.5 years with similar preoperative breast volumes and implant sizes. A total of 662 evaluations showed Round implants were identified correctly at a rate of 68.3%, while Ergonomix implants at 51.9%. In the standing position, recognition of Ergonomix implants improved significantly from 47.8% to 70.8% (p=0.041). The nipple-to-inframammary fold distance increased slightly more in the Ergonomix group without statistical significance. Ergonomix implants combine benefits of anatomical and round designs, with notable over time. The increased recognition accuracy suggests their long-term performance may be underestimated, emphasizing the importance of extended follow-up to fully assess implant outcomes.