Ergonomix versus Round Implants: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Aesthetic Outcomes and Long-Term Follow-Up in Breast...

Breast implant shape influences final aesthetic outcomes, but direct comparisons remain limited. Anatomical implants offer natural results but have associated risks. Round implants provide fullness with fewer complications. This study assesses whether experienced surgeons can distinguish between Motiva round and Ergonomix implants postoperatively.

Twenty patients undergoing primary subfascial breast augmentation were randomly assigned to receive either Motiva round or Ergonomix implants. Standardized surgical techniques were applied, and postoperative evaluations occurred at 6 and 18 months, conducted by blinded independent assessors analyzing shape, contour, and symmetry. Statistical tests included Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and interrater reliability, with significance set at P < 0.05.

Patients had a mean age of 24.5 years, with similar preoperative breast volumes and implant sizes. A total of 662 evaluations showed that round implants were identified correctly at a rate of 68.3%. Ergonomix implants were identified correctly in 51.9% of cases. In the standing position, recognition of Ergonomix implants improved significantly from 47.8% to 70.8% ( P = 0.041). The nipple-to-inframammary fold distance increased slightly more in the Ergonomix group, without statistical significance.

Ergonomix implants effectively combine the advantages of traditional round and anatomical designs, delivering a dynamic, gravity-responsive behavior that results in a more natural breast appearance, particularly in the upright position over time. The increased recognition accuracy suggests that their long-term performance may be underestimated, emphasizing the importance of extended follow-up to fully assess implant outcomes.