Sir:FigureWe had the great pleasure of reading the extremely interesting article by Hedén et al.1 entitled “Macrolene for Breast Enhancement: 12-Month Follow-Up.” We congratulate the authors for the accurate description of their experience concerning the use of a cross-linked stabilized hyaluronic acid–based gel of nonanimal origin, used as a biodegradable filler material for breast enhancement in 24 women. We would like to take the opportunity to further discuss indications, advantages, and disadvantages of this recent procedure. Injection of any material in a healthy breast, including fat2,3 and biodegradable fillers, always arouses some fear and doubt. The authors claim that nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid–based gel can be considered an alternative to silicone or saline implants, like fat grafting. Compared with autologous fat transfer, the Macrolene injection can be performed under local anesthesia and in less time but, in our opinion, is burdened by a high incidence of complications, even if most of them can be resolved quickly. We think that the incidence of adverse events reported in the 24 patients enrolled in the study is high. Indeed, 69 percent of patients experienced such complications as capsular contracture, breast tenderness, visibility, and displacement of the filler. While pointing out some disadvantages, surely we should list the possibility of the development of capsular contracture and filler migration. This obviously does not occur in lipofilling and, if the patient wishes to undergo a breast augmentation with implants, removal of this material is recommended and desirable. A requirement for Macrolene injection is patients with a pinch test greater than 2 cm; considering that these are usually patients with small breasts, not all are ideal candidates, thus increasing the risk of visibility, whereas to perform fat grafting it is necessary only that patients have adipose tissue. Furthermore, fat transferred into the breast, after initial resorption, remains constant, unlike Macrolene, which is gradually reabsorbed. Another deterrent might be the hypothetical high cost of this material, if we consider that it would take an average of 100 cc per breast, and Macrolene VRF 30 is supplied in 10-ml syringes. The authors did not mention whether this material interferes with breast imaging. In this respect, the authors performed magnetic resonance imaging only to control the right plane of injection and the rate of resorption for 1 year, but no mention was made regarding any modification of the breast parenchyma or difficulties in detection of eventual malignancies. Veber et al.4 recently published in this Journal an exhaustive study on radiographic findings after breast enhancement with autologous fat grafting. They reported that fat transfer to native breast does not hamper breast imaging and follow-up. Similar study are therefore desirable for Macrolene injections. In our opinion, we think that, as is the case with lipoaugmentation,5 there must be a proper informed consent for patients willing to undergo the procedure, and that all feasible adverse reactions should be explained. Finally, we believe that controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Macrolene for breast enhancement, especially regarding breast imaging, and we need to proceed with caution, just as is the case with fat injection. Stefano Bonomi, M.D. Fernanda Settembrini, M.D. André Salval, M.D. Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery and Burn Unit Center, Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.