Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 36 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open

Holidays With Perks: A Registry-based Study Investigating Revision Procedures Among Patients With Breast Implants Inserted Overseas.

  • Jevan Cevik1
  • Jieyun Zhou1
  • Patrick Garduce2
  • Dilinie Herbert2
  • Gillian Farrell3
  • Joseph Dusseldorp4,5
  • Arul Earnest2
  • Susannah Ahern2
  • Yvonne Chow1
5 affiliations
  1. 1From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Monash Health, Dandenong, VIC, Australia.
  2. 2School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, VIC, Australia.
  3. 3Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  4. 4Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  5. 5Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background

Cosmetic tourism for breast augmentation has increased globally, yet the downstream burden of complications and revision surgery in returning patients remains poorly quantified. This study compares the characteristics and complication profiles of breast implant revision procedures among Australian residents whose devices were inserted overseas with those inserted domestically.Methods

A retrospective registry-based study was conducted using Australian Breast Device Registry data (2012-2023). Australian residents who underwent breast implant explantation or replacement between 2016 and 2023, with documented implant insertion location, were included. Primary outcomes were the incidence of breast implant revision and types of complications, stratified by overseas versus domestic insertion. Secondary outcomes included public versus private hospital management, explant-only versus replacement procedures, concurrent mastopexy or reduction, and geographic and temporal trends.Results

Among 30,579 breast implant revision procedures, 3577 (11.7%) involved overseas-inserted devices, with both the number and proportion increasing over time. Patients with overseas-inserted implants were younger at revision (median 41 versus 44 y, P < 0.001). A greater proportion of overseas-related complications were treated in public hospitals (2.7% versus 1.5%, P < 0.001). Revisions due to complications were more common in the overseas group (73.0% versus 69.8%, P < 0.001). Device rupture (27.0% versus 24.5%), malposition (24.9% versus 20.5%), and skin scarring concerns (4.4% versus 2.2%) were more frequent among overseas-inserted implants (all P < 0.001).Conclusions

Revision of overseas-inserted breast implants is increasing in Australia and is associated with a higher burden of specific complications and greater public hospital utilization, highlighting the need for improved counseling, surveillance, and health policy responses.

Related

  1. Insights Into the Revision of Heart Transplant Allocation Criteria ― Analysis of Waitlist Mortality and Transplant Probability for Adult Heart Transplant Candidates in the Nationwide Registry Data of Japan ―
    Juntaro Ashikari, Yasumasa Tsukamoto, Shinichi Nunoda +7
    Circulation JournalPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaJ-STAGE
  2. Timing and Reported Indications for Revision After Anatomic Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Replacement: A National Joint Registry Study
    Sedeek Mosaid, Banah Khoshnaw, Nuala Pepper +3
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Surgery & anaesthesiaCrossref
  3. Decade-Stratified Malignancy Risk in Hysteroscopic Polypectomy: A Multicenter Registry Analysis of 9269 Procedures.
    Rina Tamir Yaniv, Tamar Tzur, Hila Goldstein +2
    CancersPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsEurope PMCCrossref
  4. Customized glenoid implants in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: assessing revision rate and causes of failure in the Australian Joint Registry
    Megan C. Banks, Stefan Bauer, Peiyao Du +2
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow ArthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC
  5. A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN NEOSTIGMINE VERSUS SUGAMMADEX AS REVERSAL AGENT IN PATIENTS POSTED FOR INTERVENTIONAL PULMONOLGY PROCEDURES.
    S. Umbarkar, H. Patne, M. Patil +1
    medRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textSurgery & anaesthesiamedRxiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{cevik2026holidays,
  title = {{Holidays With Perks: A Registry-based Study Investigating Revision Procedures Among Patients With Breast Implants Inserted Overseas.}},
  author = {Jevan Cevik and Jieyun Zhou and Patrick Garduce and Dilinie Herbert and Gillian Farrell and Joseph Dusseldorp and Arul Earnest and Susannah Ahern and Yvonne Chow},
  journal = {Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1097/gox.0000000000008147},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42910395},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Holidays With Perks: A Registry-based Study Investigating Revision Procedures Among Patients With Breast Implants Inserted Overseas.
AU  - Jevan Cevik
AU  - Jieyun Zhou
AU  - Patrick Garduce
AU  - Dilinie Herbert
AU  - Gillian Farrell
AU  - Joseph Dusseldorp
AU  - Arul Earnest
AU  - Susannah Ahern
AU  - Yvonne Chow
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/21
JO  - Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
DO  - 10.1097/gox.0000000000008147
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42910395
AB  - Background  Cosmetic tourism for breast augmentation has increased globally, yet the downstream burden of complications and revision surgery in returning patients remains poorly quantified. This study compares the characteristics and complication profiles of breast implant revision procedures among Australian residents whose devices were inserted overseas with those inserted domestically.Methods  A retrospective registry-based study was conducted using Australian Breast Device Registry data (2012-2023). Australian residents who underwent breast implant explantation or replacement between 2016 and 2023, with documented implant insertion location, were included. Primary outcomes were the incidence of breast implant revision and types of complications, stratified by overseas versus domestic insertion. Secondary outcomes included public versus private hospital management, explant-only versus replacement procedures, concurrent mastopexy or reduction, and geographic and temporal trends.Results  Among 30,579 breast implant revision procedures, 3577 (11.7%) involved overseas-inserted devices, with both the number and proportion increasing over time. Patients with overseas-inserted implants were younger at revision (median 41 versus 44 y, P < 0.001). A greater proportion of overseas-related complications were treated in public hospitals (2.7% versus 1.5%, P < 0.001). Revisions due to complications were more common in the overseas group (73.0% versus 69.8%, P < 0.001). Device rupture (27.0% versus 24.5%), malposition (24.9% versus 20.5%), and skin scarring concerns (4.4% versus 2.2%) were more frequent among overseas-inserted implants (all P < 0.001).Conclusions  Revision of overseas-inserted breast implants is increasing in Australia and is associated with a higher burden of specific complications and greater public hospital utilization, highlighting the need for improved counseling, surveillance, and health policy responses.
SN  - 2169-7574
ER  -