Softer Is Not Always More Natural 隆乳假體不是越軟越自然

Softer Is Not Always More Natural 隆乳假體不是越軟越自然

很多人在選擇隆乳假體時，第一個問題是：「哪一款摸起來最軟？」

但從假體工程與臨床結果來看，柔軟並不是唯一指標，填充度也可能影響假體表面的皺褶、波紋與中央投射。

MemoryGel Xtra 的設計概念，是透過優化 shell-to-gel fill，也就是外殼與凝膠填充之間的關係，在維持自然觸感的同時，提高中央飽滿度與 projection，並試圖降低 wrinkling 與 rippling。

在 GLOW 臨床研究的初次隆乳組中，3 年追蹤期間未報告感染、假體位移、疑似或確認破裂，以及 wrinkling/rippling；Baker III/IV 莢膜攣縮的 3 年 Kaplan – Meier 累積估計風險為 1.5%。

但這並不代表「零風險」。更精確的解讀應該是：在這個特定研究族群與追蹤期間內，未觀察到這些事件。這也是閱讀醫美文獻時非常重要的差別。

研究指出，乳房滿意度、心理社會福祉與性福祉均顯著改善；但 physical well-being 下降。作者討論其中一個可能因素，是初次隆乳案例中約 88% 採肌下放置，而肌下隆乳可能伴隨較慢的身體功能恢復。 隆乳手術的價值，不應只用罩杯增加多少來衡量。但同樣地，我們也不應只展示滿意度上升，而忽略身體恢復可能付出的代價。真正完整的術前諮詢，應該同時談結果、風險、恢復，以及病人的生活方式。

When patients choose a breast implant, one of the first questions is often:

“Which implant feels the softest?”

But softness is only one part of implant behavior. From both an engineering and clinical perspective, gel fill and shell – gel interaction may also influence surface wrinkling, visible rippling, central fullness, and projection.

MemoryGel Xtra was designed around an optimized shell-to-gel fill concept, aiming to preserve a natural feel while increasing central fullness and projection and potentially reducing wrinkling and rippling.

In the primary augmentation cohort of the GLOW clinical study, no cases of infection, implant malposition/displacement, suspected or confirmed rupture, or wrinkling/rippling were reported through three years of follow-up. The 3-year Kaplan – Meier estimated cumulative incidence of Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture was 1.5%.

However, this should not be interpreted as proof of “zero risk.”

A more scientifically accurate interpretation is:

No such events were observed in this specific study cohort during the reported follow-up period.

That distinction matters when translating clinical evidence into patient education.

The value of breast augmentation should not be measured only by cup size or projection.

But patient education should also avoid presenting satisfaction gains without acknowledging the physical cost of recovery.

A meaningful consultation should discuss outcomes, risks, recovery, and lifestyle – not simply implant size.

Primary Reference

Alderman, A., Caplin, D., Hammond, D. C., Keane, A., Turetzky, J., & Kane, W. J. (2023). Clinical Results of Mentor MemoryGel Xtra Breast Implants From the GLOW Clinical Trial. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 43(12), NP1021 – NP1032. DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjad272.

Supporting References

1. Caplin, D. A. (2018). Implant testing and the “strain energy” concept. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 142(4S), 12S – 20S.
2. 2. Alderman, A. K., Bauer, J., Fardo, D., Abrahamse, P., & Pusic, A. (2014). Understanding the effect of breast augmentation on quality of life: Prospective analysis using the BREAST-Q. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 133(4), 787 – 795.
3. 3. Lavine, D. M. (1993). Saline inflatable prostheses: 14 years’ experience. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 17(4), 325 – 330.
4. 4. Raj, J., & Wojtanowski, M. H. (1999). Spontaneous deflation in saline solution-filled breast implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 19(1), 24 – 26.
5. 5. Al-Sabounchi, S., De Mey, A. M. G., & Eder, H. (2006). Textured saline-filled breast implants for augmentation mammaplasty: Does overfilling prevent deflation? A long-term follow-up. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 118(1), 215 – 222.
6. 6. Eisenberg, T. (2021). Does overfilling smooth inflatable saline-filled breast implants decrease the deflation rate? Experience with 4761 augmentation mammaplasty patients. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 45(5), 1991 – 1999.
7. 7. Caplin, D. A., Calobrace, M. B., Wixtrom, R. N., Estes, M. M., & Canady, J. W. (2021). MemoryGel breast implants: Final safety and efficacy results after 10 years of follow-up. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 147(3), 556 – 566.