Comment on the Invited Discussion on "Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants"

We here present a few comments on the invited discussion of Dr. van Heijningen on the paper "Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants ". Dr. van Heijningen made some reservations regarding paper conclusions due to the high dropout rate, the adopted exclusion criteria and the location and mechanism of implant rupture. First of all, a high dropout rate is not unbeknown to researchers in surveys-based studies and may be expected when recalling in 6 months a population observed during last 20 years. In our study data are missing at random not affecting the risk of bias, while the population accurately depicts the people we care, mainly but not only reconstructive. Patients who did not respond to the questionnaire could not participate to the survey, while those who did not hold recent imaging were excluded because of the risk of false negative due to possible silent rupture, accounting to 10% in some reports. MRI imaging often shows that implants fold back on their selves when capsular contracture reduces implant pocket. As the use of the underwire bra prevents implant inferior displacement, repeated muscular contraction may worsen implant folds and the chronic wear-and-tear mechanism may be responsible for the rupture. Finally, folding is presumably easier to occur at the upper quadrants where anatomical implant shell is thinnest and gel concentration reduced than the opposite, therefore is not surprising that the higher percentage of ruptures is located in the upper implant quadrants.