Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 25, 2026
Thin Film Composite Silicon Elastomers for Cell Culture and Skin Applications: Manufacturing and Characterization
Published on: July 3, 2018
Systematic review of the effectiveness of polyurethane-coated compared with textured silicone implants in breast
Paula J Duxbury1, James R Harvey1
1University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, 46 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9NT, UK; Nightingale Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK.
Background:
Silicone gel implants are used worldwide for breast augmentation and breast reconstruction. Textured silicone implants are the most commonly placed implant, but polyurethane-coated implants are increasingly being used in an attempt to ameliorate the long-term complications associated with implant insertion.
Methods:
This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and www.ClinicalTrials.gov were undertaken in March 2014 using keywords.
Results:
Following data extraction, 18 studies were included in the review, including four core studies of textured silicone implants and five studies reporting outcomes for polyurethane-coated silicone implants. There are no clear data reporting revision rates in patients treated with polyurethane implants. In the primary reconstructive setting, capsular contracture rates with silicone implants are 10-15% at 6 years, whilst studies of polyurethane implants report rates of 1.8-3.4%. In the primary augmentation setting, core studies show a capsular contracture rate of 2-15% at 6 years compared with 0.4-1% in polyurethane-coated implants; however, the polyurethane studies are limited by their design and poor follow-up.
Conclusions:
The use of polyurethane implants should be considered a safe alternative to textured silicone implants. It is likely that an implant surface does influence short- and long-term outcomes; however, the extent of any benefit cannot be determined from the available evidence base. Future implant studies should target the short- and long-term benefits of implant surfacing by procedure with defined outcome measures; a head-to-head comparison would help clarify outcomes.
