Breast Implant Flipping: Prevalence, Clinical Correlation, and Independent Risk Factors in a Consecutive Ultrasound Cohort

Clicks: 22
ID: 332591
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #72 of 129 articles by views in Aesthetic surgery journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 129 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Silicone breast implants are designed with an anterior domed surface, and relatively flat posterior surface that contains the cured silicone patch. With implant flipping (an anterior-posterior malposition), the posterior patch rotates to an anterior position. Objectives There are currently no prospective published studies reporting the prevalence of implant flipping and its associated symptoms in aesthetic patients. This prospective study used in-office high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) to evaluate the prevalence of breast implant flipping, assess associated changes in breast shape, appearance, and symptoms, and identify potential risk factors. Methods Consecutive patients with silicone breast implants presenting for routine follow-up underwent HRUS at 7 study sites in the United States over a 4-month period between April 1st and August 1st, 2026. Demographic data included age and BMI. Implant data included time since surgery, whether a primary of revision procedure, number of revisions, manufacturer, size, style, surface, use of ADM or scaffold, pocket location, capsule grade, flipped or not, and rupture. Results Five hundred and ninety consecutive patients were enrolled over 4 months. Mean age 43 years with range 22-82, mean BMI 23 with range of 16-34.5. Primary augmentations accounted for 64.6% of procedures, while revision augmentations accounted for 35.4%. Device manufacturer distribution, 63.9% Allergan, 12.4% Mentor, 15.9% Motiva, and 7.1% Sientra. Implant flipping was identified in 75 patients (12.7%). Conclusions Implant flipping was identified by HRUS in one in eight patients. Larger implant volume, prepectoral placement, and lack of soft tissue support were independently associated with flipping. HRUS improves detection, patient counseling, and surgical planning.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222579192 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Patricia McGuire, Caroline A. Glicksman, Allen Gabriel, Marisa Lawrence, Melinda J. Haws, Holly Casey Wall, Simeon Wall, Stephen D. Bresnick
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Aesthetic surgery journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjag235
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag235
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.