Motiva implants are the “sixth generation” of implants. They are microtextured, putting them in a category that is not smooth or macrotextured. According to them, this helps reduce foreign body reaction (capsular contracture). “To date there has been no research to investigate the incidence of ALCL with microtextured breast implants.”
Round implants have become the workhorse of breast augmentation. The prior shaped breast anatomic implants were largely removed from the market because of their surface texturing, which could lead to a rare increased risk of ALCL, a lymphoma cancer associated with the texturing.
There were also many studies which showed there was little shape advantage between the shaped implants vs round implants. SEE PRIOR STUDIES ON ANATOMIC VS ROUND
Motiva argues that their Ergonomix implants are dynamic, so they look round when lying down, but more teardrop when you stand. They also state that this difference IS visible. Because it is dynamic, they do not worry about rotation issues, which were an issue with anatomical implants in the past. This study was to compare round to Ergonomix implants to show the difference in shape is noticeable.
This was a study of 662 evaluations assessing the patients at 6 months and 18 months by 9 independent plastic surgeons. Patients mean age was 24.5, BMI was 20.6. Implant volume was around 270cc for both groups.
Findings?
They conclude, “Ergonomix implants effective combine the advantages of traditional round and anatomical designs, giving a dynamic, gravity responsive behavior that results in a more natural breast appearance.”
Motiva implants started in Costa Rica in 2010 but were not approved for use in the US until September 2024. When you read their website, they will discuss how they have been used in over 80 countries and have a track record of low complication rates (.05% for capsular contracture, and 0.07% for rupture). They tout themselves as the next generation of breast implant.
In this study, their technique was an inframammary incision and then doing a subfascial (in front of the muscle) pocket. They used standard perioperative infection control. A funnel was only used in 11 cases.
I don’t know what to think about Motiva. Clearly they are here to stay and are increasingly being used. New is not always better, and with breast implants, I have seen many companies come and go. When they quote such low capsular contracture and rupture rates, I just don’t know that I can trust that data. I need to do more research to see if those numbers are real and what the time frames are. The thing that will reassure me? TIME.
Questions which this study asked, like is microtexturing associated with ALCL? are important. Subfascial implant placement is really subglandular, as that fascia is not a thick layer. Please see my prior blog about the clear increase in complications in breast cancer patients with the rise of implant placements in front of the muscle. And in these thin patients is there any issue with visible wrinkling in the upper pole over time?
I am open to seeing how they do with time. A better implant? Lower complications? Better natural look? I’m in… as long as I see the data and the longer term results are good.
Ergonomix versus Round Implants: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Aesthetic Outcomes and Long-Term Follow-Up in Breast Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal 2026
Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Evaluating the Shift, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal 2026
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare provider for any questions regarding your health or medical condition.
