Capsular Contracture Rates in Subfascial and Subglandular Breast Augmentation With Smooth vs Textured Implants

Subfascial placement has been reported to reduce capsular contracture (CC) in primary breast augmentation. Given the shift toward smooth implants, it is unclear whether the perceived advantage reflects the surgical plane or historical implant selection. This study compares CC rates between subfascial and subglandular breast augmentation stratified by implant surface. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library, London, UK), and Google Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA) were searched through April 2025. Studies reporting CC in primary augmentation with specified implant surface and plane were included. Random-effects models generated pooled incidences and odds ratios. Subgroup analyses evaluated studies published in the last decade and with a mean follow up duration greater than 24 months. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Across all years, studies comparing subfascial versus subglandular placement for smooth implants demonstrated no statistically significant difference in capsular contracture rates (7.2% vs 17.1%, p=0.13). Studies evaluating textured implants similarly showed no significant difference between planes (0.9% vs 3.7%, p=0.08). In studies published since 2015, smooth implants demonstrated comparable capsular contracture rates between subglandular and subfascial placement (8.2% vs 10.3%, p=0.54). In studies with mean follow-up greater than 24 months, no significant differences were observed for smooth implants, while textured implants demonstrated lower rates with subfascial placement. Microtextured implants demonstrated the lowest CC rates. When controlling for implant surface, CC rates do not differ significantly between subfascial and subglandular placement. Previously reported reductions in CC with subfascial augmentation appear driven by textured-implant cohorts. In contemporary smooth-implant practice, CC rates are similar across prepectoral planes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Published
2026-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag017
Primary Topic
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Capsular Contracture Rates in Subfascial and Subglandular Breast Augmentation With Smooth vs Textured Implants

Barite Gutama, Jordan Johnson, Louis L. Strock, Erin Abbott et al.
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

Capsular Contracture Rates in Subfascial and Subglandular Breast Augmentation With Smooth vs Textured Implants

Barite Gutama, Jordan Johnson, Louis L. Strock, Erin Abbott, Galen Perdikis, Allen Gabriel, Nomonogo Dorjsuren, Emmanuel Giannas, G Patrick Maxwell, Benjamin L Savitz
article en

Abstract

Subfascial placement has been reported to reduce capsular contracture (CC) in primary breast augmentation. Given the shift toward smooth implants, it is unclear whether the perceived advantage reflects the surgical plane or historical implant selection. This study compares CC rates between subfascial and subglandular breast augmentation stratified by implant surface. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library, London, UK), and Google Scholar (Alphabet, Inc., Mountain View, CA) were searched through April 2025. Studies reporting CC in primary augmentation with specified implant surface and plane were included. Random-effects models generated pooled incidences and odds ratios. Subgroup analyses evaluated studies published in the last decade and with a mean follow up duration greater than 24 months. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Across all years, studies comparing subfascial versus subglandular placement for smooth implants demonstrated no statistically significant difference in capsular contracture rates (7.2% vs 17.1%, p=0.13). Studies evaluating textured implants similarly showed no significant difference between planes (0.9% vs 3.7%, p=0.08). In studies published since 2015, smooth implants demonstrated comparable capsular contracture rates between subglandular and subfascial placement (8.2% vs 10.3%, p=0.54). In studies with mean follow-up greater than 24 months, no significant differences were observed for smooth implants, while textured implants demonstrated lower rates with subfascial placement. Microtextured implants demonstrated the lowest CC rates. When controlling for implant surface, CC rates do not differ significantly between subfascial and subglandular placement. Previously reported reductions in CC with subfascial augmentation appear driven by textured-implant cohorts. In contemporary smooth-implant practice, CC rates are similar across prepectoral planes.

Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Vanderbilt University (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.