In the present article, the authors have tried to discuss the emerging crisis of stakeholders in implant-based breast augmentation mammoplasty and to propose a multidisciplinary approach for the early detection of complications. 1 However, the only finding with any basis of evidence in the "Methods" and the "Results" sections is that the awareness of patients regarding the information of breast implants was slightly different from the sonographic findings (78.95% vs. 85.09%). Based on this

more »

... t, the authors have elaborated on their alarming claim, namely the alleged "conflict of interest" that plastic surgeons in Korea supposedly have ("something-for-something relationship" to quote the manuscript) and the "inappropriate approval process" of breast implants by the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (KMFDS). In addition, they have suggested a "multidisciplinary approach" to breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). We fail to understand the relationship between the results of the study and the statements in the discussion. In other words, it is highly unclear what the authors intended to show in view of their study results. This manuscript causes confusion in the minds of readers by arriving at a completely different conclusion with no basis. Conflict of interest is a critical issue and every physician should be aware of it. Surgeons should select the type of breast implant based on patients' pre-operative physical characteristics, personal preference, and legal availability and the decision should not be biased by the surgeons' tangible or intangible profits. However, in this article, the authors have rushed to accuse the plastic surgeons who have used textured implants, implying personal benefits. Too put this softly, this is a very serious claim. Respectfully, we would like to give the authors a chance to contemplate whether they really think plastic surgeons have used textured implants due to a "something-for-something" relationship with the manufacturers. We also question the authors' opinion on the abundant prospective and retrospective articles that have extensively studied the advantages of textured implants. 2-12 Have the studies reported these results on behalf of the manufacturers or considering their benefits? Above all, how do the results of the present study (the sonographic findings of breast implants) lead to the preposterous opinion on the conflict of interest?