Capsular Contracture After Implant Breast Reconstruction
Capsular contracture is the most common complication of implant-based breast reconstruction over time. Dr. Brian Kelley, an Austin reconstructive surgeon, walks through what causes it, when conservative measures help, when surgery is needed, why radiation matters so much, and the three real conversion options — new implants with capsulectomy, conversion to autologous flap reconstruction, or aesthetic flat closure. Patient-reported outcomes data, recovery timelines, and Baker grading included.
Written by Brian P. Kelley, MD — Dual Board-Certified Plastic & Hand Surgeon
Affiliate Faculty, Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin
Seton Ascension Institute for Reconstructive Plastic and Hand Surgery — Austin, Texas
Medically reviewed: June 1, 2026 · Last updated: June 1, 2026
Educational content. Not a substitute for individualized medical evaluation.
Introduction
A common reason patients come to my office months or years after implant-based breast reconstruction is that one or both reconstructed breasts have become firm, distorted, or painful. The medical term for this is capsular contracture, and it is the single most common complication of implant-based breast reconstruction over time.
For some patients, capsular contracture is mild and well tolerated. For others, it produces a hard, misshapen, painful breast that significantly affects quality of life. Either way, it has a defined pathophysiology, a structured approach to treatment, and several real options for management — including the option to leave implants behind entirely and convert to a different reconstructive approach.
I practice as a dual board-certified plastic and hand surgeon in Austin, Texas, an Affiliate Faculty Professor at Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and a partner at the Seton Ascension Institute for Reconstructive Plastic and Hand Surgery. My published systematic reviews on breast reconstruction in the setting of radiation directly inform how I think about capsular contracture in radiated patients, who carry the highest risk.1,2
This post explains why capsular contracture happens, what conservative and surgical options exist, why radiation matters so much, and what conversion to a different reconstruction looks like when the implant path has run its course.
What Is Capsular Contracture?
Every breast implant — whether placed for cosmetic augmentation or for post-mastectomy reconstruction — develops a thin layer of scar tissue around it as part of normal healing. This is called the capsule, and in most patients it is soft, pliable, and clinically invisible.
In some patients, the capsule progressively thickens, contracts, and constricts the implant. The result is a breast that feels firm, looks misshapen, sits higher on the chest than it should, and in advanced cases is painful at rest or with movement.
The severity of capsular contracture is described using the Baker classification, originally developed for cosmetic augmentation and modified by Spear and Baker in 1995 specifically for post-mastectomy reconstruction.3 The reconstruction-specific system includes class IA (entirely natural appearance), class IB (soft but visible implant edge), class II (mildly firm), class III (moderately firm with visible distortion), and class IV (severely firm, distorted, often painful).
The Baker classification has known limitations — it is subjective, has variable interobserver agreement, and was not designed to capture the patient's experience. But it remains the most widely used framework for grading severity and guiding treatment decisions.
How Common Is Capsular Contracture?
The reported rates vary substantially across studies, depending on the implant type, surgical technique, follow-up duration, and patient population.
For cosmetic augmentation, capsular contracture rates of approximately 15 to 45% have been reported across long-term follow-up studies. For post-mastectomy reconstruction without radiation, rates of 2.8 to 15.9% are commonly cited. The presence of radiation changes these numbers substantially — published rates for capsular contracture in irradiated implant reconstruction range from 17% to 86%, with the wide range reflecting different definitions, follow-up periods, and radiation protocols.4
The bottom line: capsular contracture is common, particularly in radiated patients, and the conversation about it is part of any honest implant reconstruction consultation.
What Causes Capsular Contracture?
The pathophysiology of capsular contracture is not fully understood but has converged on several contributing mechanisms.
Subclinical bacterial infection (biofilm). This is the most widely accepted mechanism. A landmark 2003 study by Pajkos and colleagues demonstrated that bacterial biofilm — particularly coagulase-negative staphylococci — was identifiable on the capsule in 17 of 19 contracted breasts compared to only one of eight non-contracted controls.5 A 2010 porcine model from the same research group showed that subclinical biofilm contamination at the time of implant placement causes capsular contracture, providing direct causal evidence in an animal system.6
This finding has shaped modern surgical practice. Strategies to reduce capsular contracture now routinely include antibiotic irrigation of the implant pocket, minimal implant handling, careful skin preparation, the use of insertion sleeves, and other measures aimed at reducing the bacterial load that reaches the implant surface.
Hematoma and seroma. Postoperative blood or fluid collections create an inflammatory environment around the implant that may predispose to thicker capsule formation and higher contracture rates. Meticulous hemostasis and the appropriate use of drains are part of the prevention strategy.
Radiation. Radiation produces progressive microvascular injury, fibrosis, and chronic inflammation in breast tissue. When an implant sits within an irradiated field, the surrounding tissue is fundamentally less elastic and the capsule that forms tends to be thicker and more contracted. I'll discuss this in its own section below.
Implant-related factors. Smooth-surface implants have been associated with higher contracture rates than textured implants in some studies, though the magnitude of the difference is debated and textured implants carry their own concerns (most notably, the rare but recognized risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL).
Patient-related factors. A history of previous capsular contracture, certain autoimmune conditions, and possibly genetic factors may contribute to risk in some patients.
When Does Capsular Contracture Develop?
This is one of the most common patient questions, and the honest answer is that timing varies widely.
The majority of clinically significant capsular contracture appears within the first one to two years after implant placement, with most cases that develop doing so within this window. However, capsular contracture can develop years later, and patients many years out from their original reconstruction are not in the clear.
Several patterns are worth knowing. In radiated patients, contracture often appears during or shortly after radiation as the irradiated tissue begins to remodel — sometimes within months. In non-radiated patients, contracture more commonly develops gradually over the first one to three years. A small subset of patients develop late contracture five or more years after surgery, often associated with implant rupture, an episode of infection, or a new hematoma from trauma to the chest.
For patients who have had previous capsular contracture and undergone capsulectomy with implant exchange, recurrent contracture tends to develop within a shorter timeframe than the original — often within the first year after revision — which is part of why durability is such an important consideration in choosing between conversion options.
How Capsular Contracture Is Diagnosed
Diagnosis is fundamentally clinical, supported by selective use of imaging when needed.
A typical history includes a sensation that one or both reconstructed breasts have become firmer, higher on the chest, more painful, or visibly different over time. Pain may be at rest, with movement, with lying on the affected side, or with exercise. Some patients report a sense of distortion that bothers them aesthetically even before significant pain develops.
A focused physical examination establishes the Baker grade, evaluates the symmetry and position of both breasts, and identifies any associated findings such as visible implant edges, palpable folds or rippling, or signs that suggest implant rupture (a change in shape, asymmetric softening, or new pain after a long stable period).
Imaging is not required to diagnose capsular contracture itself but is useful in specific situations. Ultrasound can evaluate for implant rupture, fluid collections, and capsule thickness. MRI is the most sensitive test for silicone implant rupture, and the FDA currently recommends periodic MRI or ultrasound screening for silent rupture in patients with silicone implants — though the optimal screening interval is debated.
If an unusual finding is identified — fluid around an implant, a focal mass, or an asymmetric change — additional workup may be appropriate before any planned surgery.
A consultation for capsular contracture also includes a careful discussion of the patient's history (radiation, prior infections, prior contracture, original reconstruction details), current symptoms, and goals. This conversation is often the most important part of the visit, because it shapes which of the surgical options fits the patient's life and priorities.
Conservative Management for Lower-Grade Contracture
For Baker grade I and II contracture — a breast that is mildly firm but visually acceptable and not painful — conservative management is often the right initial approach.
Observation with serial examination is reasonable for stable, asymptomatic lower-grade contracture. Many cases remain stable over years without progressing.
Leukotriene receptor antagonists are oral medications originally developed for asthma — zafirlukast (Accolate) and montelukast (Singulair) — that have been used off-label for capsular contracture for over two decades. The biological rationale is that leukotrienes are inflammatory mediators that drive fibroblast activity, and blocking their receptors may reduce capsule fibrosis.
A 2017 retrospective study of more than 1,100 primary augmentation cases reported encapsulation rates of 2.19% with prophylactic zafirlukast and 3.27% with montelukast.7 A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis confirmed a statistically significant effect of leukotriene receptor antagonists on capsular contracture, with zafirlukast showing a stronger effect than montelukast.4
The honest framing on these medications: the evidence base is real but limited, the optimal dose and duration are not established, zafirlukast carries a black-box warning for liver toxicity that requires monitoring, and montelukast carries an FDA warning about neuropsychiatric effects. They are off-label uses, and the decision to try them is individualized.
Other conservative measures — including breast massage, vitamin E, ultrasound therapy, and dietary interventions — have been proposed historically but lack strong supporting evidence. I am cautious about recommending them as primary treatments.
When conservative measures fail or contracture progresses to Baker grade III or IV, surgical management becomes the conversation.
When Surgery Is Needed and What It Improves
Surgical management is generally appropriate for Baker grade III or IV contracture, particularly when the contracture is symptomatic — painful at rest, painful with movement, visibly distorting, or significantly affecting quality of life. Grade II contracture is occasionally treated surgically when patient symptoms or aesthetics warrant.
The surgical options fall into three broad categories, and the choice among them is the most important conversation in the consultation.
Capsulectomy with implant exchange is the traditional surgical approach. The capsule is removed (partially or completely) and a new implant is placed, often with adjunctive measures intended to reduce recurrence: antibiotic irrigation, a fresh surgical field, sometimes a change in implant location (such as from subglandular to submuscular), and increasingly the use of acellular dermal matrix or synthetic mesh to provide additional support and theoretically reduce recurrence risk.
The honest framing on capsulectomy with implant exchange: it can produce excellent results, but recurrent capsular contracture is a recognized risk, particularly in radiated patients and in patients who have had prior contracture. Long-term durability is the central uncertainty.
Conversion to autologous (flap) reconstruction removes the implant and the capsule entirely and rebuilds the breast with the patient's own tissue. I discuss this option in its own section below because it deserves dedicated attention.
Conversion to aesthetic flat closure removes the implant and reshapes the chest to a smooth, comfortable flat contour. This is a legitimate choice, not a failure, and a meaningful number of patients who have lived with repeated implant complications find that going flat is the path that fits their life.
What surgery can improve, honestly: the firmness and contour of the breast in most patients, the pain associated with capsular contracture in many, and the symmetry of the chest. What surgery cannot always do: provide permanent freedom from contracture in patients who keep implants, eliminate all aesthetic concerns, or fully restore the sensation of the breast.
The Role of Radiation
Radiation deserves its own discussion because it changes the entire conversation about implant reconstruction durability.
When implants sit within an irradiated tissue field, the published evidence shows substantially elevated complication rates. My co-authored systematic review in Annals of Surgical Oncology found reconstruction failure rates approaching 20% for implant-based reconstruction with either pre-reconstruction or post-reconstruction radiotherapy.2 The companion review I first-authored on autologous reconstruction in the same setting found a more stable complication profile, with a pooled flap fibrosis rate of approximately 27% but without the dramatic outright failure rates seen with implants.1
The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium analyzed long-term patient-reported outcomes by reconstruction type and consistently found higher satisfaction with autologous reconstruction than with implant reconstruction at two years, with the gap growing over time — a finding that is particularly relevant in radiated patients.8
What this means for the capsular contracture conversation: for patients with radiated implant reconstruction who develop significant contracture, repeat capsulectomy with implant exchange has a higher recurrence risk than in non-radiated patients, and the long-term durability of staying with implants in this setting is genuinely uncertain. Many of these patients are best served by conversion to autologous tissue, which tolerates the radiated environment meaningfully better than another implant.
I discuss this in more detail in my dedicated post on breast reconstruction after radiation.
The Three Conversion Options
When a patient has decided their current implant reconstruction is not the path forward — whether because of contracture, pain, infection, malposition, or simply not liking the result — three broad reconstructive directions exist.
Option 1: New Implants
This means removing the existing implant, performing a capsulectomy, and placing a new implant — often with adjunctive measures like ADM or mesh, sometimes with a change in pocket location, sometimes with a different implant type.
The advantages: shorter recovery than autologous options, no donor site, no microsurgery.
The honest disadvantages: recurrent capsular contracture is a real risk, particularly in radiated patients; long-term durability of implant reconstruction varies; and in patients who have already had one implant complication, loss of implants secondary to infections (especially in radiated tissues), the question of whether another implant will fare better is often uncertain. The MROC patient-reported outcomes data shows that implant satisfaction tends to decline over time more steeply than autologous satisfaction.8,9
Option 2: Conversion to Autologous (Flap) Reconstruction
This involves removing the implant and capsule and rebuilding the breast with the patient's own tissue — most commonly a DIEP flap from the lower abdomen. The blood supply of the flap is reconnected microsurgically in the chest, and the result is a soft, natural-feeling breast made of living tissue.
The advantages: living tissue tolerates radiation much better than implants; the result tends to be soft and stable long-term; the satisfaction data favor autologous reconstruction at two years and beyond.8 Patients with radiated implant reconstructions who convert to autologous often experience the most dramatic improvement.
The honest disadvantages: this is a major microsurgical operation with several days of hospitalization, drains for weeks, and restricted activity for six to eight weeks; flap loss is a real (though uncommon in experienced hands) risk; donor-site complications can occur; and the recovery is meaningfully longer than implant exchange.
For patients with very thin habitus, prior abdominal surgery, or other reasons why DIEP isn't feasible, alternative flaps including PAP, TUG, SGAP, and latissimus dorsi remain options.
Option 3: Conversion to Aesthetic Flat Closure
This involves removing the implant and capsule and contouring the chest wall to a smooth, comfortable flat result — without rebuilding a breast mound.
The advantages: shortest recovery of the three options; no microsurgery; no donor site; no future implant complications; many patients describe a profound sense of relief after living with problematic implants for years.
A large patient-reported outcomes survey found that 15% of patients who had "gone flat" after mastectomy had initially undergone breast reconstruction that was later removed, with the reason for removal in roughly 70% of those cases being a problem with the implant.10 Choosing this is not a failure. It is a valid option that fits some patients' lives and preferences.
The honest framing: aesthetic flat closure requires deliberate contouring to produce a smooth result, not simply removal of the implant. Patients considering this option should discuss the specific goals — including handling of redundant skin, scarring, and chest wall contour — with a surgeon experienced in performing aesthetic flat closure as a planned operation. I discuss this in more detail in my dedicated post on aesthetic flat closure.
A related question that frequently comes up in this discussion is breast implant illness, or BII — a term patients use to describe a constellation of systemic symptoms (fatigue, brain fog, joint pain, autoimmune-like symptoms) attributed to their implants.
The current state of the medical literature on BII is honestly mixed. Many patients report symptom improvement after implant removal, but the underlying biology remains poorly understood, no diagnostic criteria are established, and rigorous prospective studies are limited.
I don't dismiss patients who raise BII concerns, and I don't overclaim that implant removal will resolve all systemic symptoms. The conversation is part of the consultation when relevant, and the decision to remove implants for BII concerns is a legitimate one that can be made alongside the contracture-related considerations.
Recovery and What to Expect
Recovery varies substantially among the three options and is worth describing realistically.
Capsulectomy with implant exchange is typically an outpatient or short-stay operation. Drains are usually in place for one to two weeks. Patients are restricted from heavy lifting and strenuous activity for four to six weeks, with gradual return to full activity over six to eight weeks. The breast often softens over the first several months as swelling resolves, and the final result is typically apparent at six to twelve months.
Conversion to autologous flap reconstruction is a major microsurgical operation. The hospital stay is typically three to four days. Drains are in place for several weeks, sometimes longer for the chest and donor sites.
Restricted activity continues for six to eight weeks, with no heavy lifting or strenuous core work during this period for abdominal-based flaps. The breast continues to settle and soften over months, and continued refinement procedures such as fat grafting are common in the first year after the main operation. I discuss this timeline in more detail in my dedicated post on DIEP flap recovery.
Conversion to aesthetic flat closure has the shortest recovery of the three. The operation itself is typically outpatient. Drains are in place for one to two weeks. Restricted activity continues for two to four weeks, with most patients resuming normal activity within a month. The final contour of the chest wall continues to settle over several months, and minor revision procedures are sometimes performed at six to twelve months if needed.
Across all three options, the realistic expectation is that meaningful symptom relief from capsular contracture (firmness, pain, distortion) typically begins immediately after surgery, but the final aesthetic result evolves over months. Setting that expectation clearly is part of the planning conversation.
A Note on Local Care in Central Texas
Patients in Austin and across Central Texas with capsular contracture after implant reconstruction deserve a careful consultation that considers all three conversion options, the realistic likelihood of recurrent contracture if implants are kept, and the patient's own priorities about recovery, aesthetics, and long-term durability.
I see patients from across Central Texas for revision of prior implant reconstruction, including conversion to autologous tissue, exchange with capsulectomy, and conversion to aesthetic flat closure. Referrals from breast surgical oncologists, primary care physicians, and other plastic surgeons are welcome.
Related Topics
- Breast reconstruction overview
- DIEP flap breast reconstruction
- Implant-based breast reconstruction
- Hybrid breast reconstruction
- Breast reconstruction after radiation: choosing a durable option
- Not a DIEP candidate? Alternative flaps for breast reconstruction
- Aesthetic flat closure
- Revising a breast reconstruction done in the past
- Breast reconstruction coverage in Texas: WHCRA and beyond
Frequently Asked Questions
Mild capsular contracture (Baker grade I or II) is often asymptomatic — the breast may feel slightly firmer than the natural side but looks normal. More advanced contracture (Baker III or IV) produces a breast that feels firm to hard, sits higher on the chest, may appear visibly distorted, and is often uncomfortable or frankly painful at rest or with movement. Patients sometimes describe it as a tight, squeezing sensation around the implant.
Most clinically significant capsular contracture develops within the first one to two years after implant placement, though it can appear years later. In radiated patients, contracture often develops earlier — sometimes during or shortly after radiation as the irradiated tissue remodels. Late contracture (5+ years after surgery) is sometimes associated with implant rupture, a new episode of infection, or trauma to the chest. Recurrent contracture after a revision tends to develop faster than the original.
Diagnosis is primarily clinical, based on history (firmness, pain, distortion developing over time) and physical examination establishing the Baker grade. Imaging is not required to diagnose contracture itself but is useful in specific situations — ultrasound for fluid collections or suspected rupture, and MRI for the most sensitive evaluation of silicone implant integrity. The FDA recommends periodic imaging surveillance for silent silicone implant rupture, though the optimal interval is debated.
Reported rates vary widely. For implant reconstruction without radiation, capsular contracture rates of 2.8% to 15.9% are commonly cited in the literature. With radiation, the rates increase substantially — reported ranges of 17% to 86% depending on the radiation protocol, follow-up duration, and definition used. The literature is heterogeneous, but the central message is that radiation is the strongest single risk factor.
Possibly, for lower-grade contracture. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (zafirlukast and montelukast) have been used off-label for capsular contracture with some supporting evidence, including a meta-analysis showing a statistically significant effect. Observation, breast massage, and other conservative measures have been used historically. For grade III or IV contracture that is painful or significantly distorting, surgical management is generally needed.
No, but it substantially increases the risk. Published capsular contracture rates after radiated implant reconstruction range from 17% to 86%, compared with 2.8% to 15.9% for non-radiated implant reconstruction. For patients who require post-mastectomy radiation, the conversation about whether implants are the right long-term reconstructive choice deserves serious attention, and many of these patients are better served by autologous reconstruction.
For grade I or II contracture without symptoms, keeping the implants and observing is often reasonable. For grade III or IV contracture, particularly with pain or significant distortion, surgical intervention is generally recommended. If you choose to address it surgically, capsulectomy with implant exchange is one option — but it does carry a real risk of recurrent contracture, particularly in radiated patients.
Possibly. Recurrent capsular contracture after capsulectomy and implant exchange is a recognized concern, particularly in radiated patients and in patients with a history of prior contracture. Modern surgical techniques (fresh pocket, antibiotic irrigation, ADM or mesh support, change of plane) can reduce but not eliminate recurrence risk. Long-term durability is the central question, and patients who have had one contracture should consider whether autologous conversion or flat closure might better fit their priorities.
Conversion to autologous reconstruction involves removing the implant and capsule and rebuilding the breast with the patient's own tissue, most commonly a DIEP flap from the lower abdomen. The blood supply of the flap is reconnected microsurgically in the chest. This is a major operation with a hospital stay of several days, drains for weeks, and restricted activity for six to eight weeks, but it produces a soft, durable reconstruction made of living tissue that tolerates radiation well.
That is a legitimate choice. Aesthetic flat closure — removing the implant and capsule and contouring the chest to a smooth, flat result — is recognized in the published literature and chosen by a meaningful number of patients with problematic implant reconstructions. Done well, it requires deliberate planning rather than simple implant removal. I discuss this option in detail in my post on aesthetic flat closure.
Breast implant illness is a term patients use for systemic symptoms (fatigue, brain fog, joint pain, autoimmune-like symptoms) attributed to their implants. The literature on BII is genuinely mixed: many patients report symptom improvement after implant removal, but the underlying biology remains poorly understood and rigorous prospective studies are limited. I take BII concerns seriously without overclaiming what removal will do. For patients who also have capsular contracture, BII is one consideration among several in the decision to convert to flap reconstruction or aesthetic flat closure.
Recovery depends substantially on which option you choose. Capsulectomy with implant exchange is typically a short-recovery operation with restricted activity for four to six weeks. Conversion to autologous flap reconstruction is a major microsurgical operation with a hospital stay of several days, drains for weeks, and restricted activity for six to eight weeks. Conversion to aesthetic flat closure has the shortest recovery, with most patients resuming normal activity within a month. In all cases, the final aesthetic result continues to evolve over months.
As a reconstructive surgeon at the Seton Ascension Institute for Reconstructive Plastic and Hand Surgery, I see patients from across Central Texas for evaluation of capsular contracture and discussion of all three conversion options — new implants with capsulectomy, conversion to autologous flap reconstruction, or conversion to aesthetic flat closure. Referrals from oncology teams, primary care, and other plastic surgeons are welcome, and direct patient inquiries are accepted depending on individual insurance plans.
1. Kelley BP, Ahmed R, Kidwell KM, Kozlow JH, Chung KC, Momoh AO. A systematic review of morbidity associated with autologous breast reconstruction before and after exposure to radiotherapy: are current practices ideal? Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2014;21(5):1732–1738. PMID: 24473643.
2. Momoh AO, Ahmed R, Kelley BP, Aliu O, Kidwell KM, Kozlow JH, Chung KC. A systematic review of complications of implant-based breast reconstruction with prereconstruction and postreconstruction radiotherapy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2014;21(1):118–124. PMID: 24081801.
3. Spear SL, Baker JL Jr. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1995;96(5):1119–1123. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199510000-00018.
4. Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists for the Prevention and Treatment of Capsular Contracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2025. PMCID: PMC12286764.
5. Pajkos A, Deva AK, Vickery K, Cope C, Chang L, Cossart YE. Detection of subclinical infection in significant breast implant capsules. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2003;111(5):1605–1611. PMID: 12655204.
6. Tamboto H, Vickery K, Deva AK. Subclinical (biofilm) infection causes capsular contracture in a porcine model following augmentation mammaplasty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2010;126(3):835–842. PMID: 20811216.
7. Bresnick SD. Prophylactic Leukotriene Inhibitor Therapy for the Reduction of Capsular Contracture in Primary Silicone Breast Augmentation: Experience with over 1100 Cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2017;139(2):379e–385e. PMCID: PMC5327859.
8. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surgery. 2018;153(10):891–899. PMID: 29926096.
9. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surgery. 2018;153(10):901–908. PMID: 29926077.
10. Baker JL, Dizon DS, Wenziger CM, Streja E, Thompson CK, Lee MK, DiNome ML, Attai DJ. "Going Flat" After Mastectomy: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Online Survey. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2021;28(5):2493–2505. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09448-9.
Closing Disclaimer
This article is educational and does not establish a doctor-patient relationship. It does not replace individualized consultation, examination, or review of personal medical history. Patients with capsular contracture or other concerns about their breast reconstruction are encouraged to consult a reconstructive surgeon experienced in revision and conversion procedures.
Want to learn more?
Book a consultation
