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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag235
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

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

Marisa Lawrence, Melinda J. Haws, Patricia McGuire, Caroline A. Glicksman et al.
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Breast Implant and Reconstruction
article

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

Marisa Lawrence, Melinda J. Haws, Patricia McGuire, Caroline A. Glicksman, Stephen D. Bresnick, Holly Casey Wall, Allen Gabriel, Simeon Wall
article en

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.

Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Washington University in St. Louis (US), Louisiana State University in Shreveport (US), Hackensack Meridian Health (US), Center for Discovery (US), Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
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.