The Mentor breast implant study reports five-year complication and satisfaction results, but its findings cannot prove which device is safest.
New five-year data, with an important warning
The Mentor breast implant study has published interim five-year results from its prospective GLOW programme. The research appeared online in Aesthetic Surgery Journal on 6 November 2026. It covers 2,729 patients who received MemoryGel, MemoryGel Xtra or MemoryShape implants for augmentation or reconstruction. These are meaningful contemporary follow-up data. However, the findings cannot establish that one implant is safer than another.
What the five-year numbers show
The study groups included 2,043 MemoryGel patients, 289 MemoryGel Xtra patients and 397 MemoryShape patients. Among primary augmentation patients, estimated five-year Baker grade III or IV capsular contracture rates were 5.16%, 1.42% and 0.31%, respectively. Implant-related reoperation estimates were 5.49%, 2.9% and 3.37%. Explantation estimates were 6.39%, 5.90% and 4.01%. These outcomes describe different events and should not be added together. The study also reported significant improvements in BREAST-Q satisfaction, psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being compared with baseline.
Why the apparent differences need caution
The investigators explicitly state that GLOW was not designed for head-to-head comparisons between implants. Group sizes were unequal. Patients, surgical indications and implant selection may also have differed. Consequently, a lower percentage in one group does not demonstrate superiority. The study is an interim analysis from a planned ten-year programme, and several authors have affiliations with Mentor or Johnson & Johnson. Independent registry data remain valuable for context.
What remains unknown
Five years does not describe an implant’s full lifetime. Late rupture, additional surgery and rare implant-associated conditions require longer observation and sometimes specific imaging. The published summary does not establish a lifetime risk for any device. Patients considering augmentation should discuss implant characteristics, personal risk factors, expected surveillance and the possibility of future operations with a qualified plastic surgeon.
What this means for consent
The clearest takeaway is not a winning implant. It is the value of discussing specific outcomes rather than promising permanent results. The ten-year follow-up may provide a more complete picture, but it will still require careful interpretation.
Sources
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag234
Disclaimer
This article is published by Aesthetics.news for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, and should not replace a consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Treatments and outcomes may vary from person to person. Readers should seek advice from an appropriately qualified professional before making decisions about their health or treatment. In a medical emergency, seek immediate medical assistance.