You tend to adopt a lot of the things that you saw worked for the surgeon who trained you. I worked with surgeons who liked smooth, round company A implants. That's what I used. I didn't see anything at all those meetings I attended that would dissuade me from that. It was a good choice, because those ones hadn't really caused any problems that we know of.
The textured implants were introduced by the company. It doesn't sound like they went through a rigorous FDA-type drug evaluation, but they were introduced because that interface between the texture and the capsule of the body—the response—was supposed to lessen that capsular contracture. It was all about trying to innovate to reduce a complication, and they created a different complication. It's like introducing a different animal in Australia to get rid of a problem: You create another problem.
The whole choice of implants has historically been surgeon-biased. To answer the earlier question about whether there's bias in the literature, there have been well-documented studies that there's bias in every aspect of the scientific literature, whether it's recognized or not. Industry is a classic example of producing biased research findings.
When you have a patient demand for the service and you have a limited number of options, you pick which one you think is good. You check with your colleagues, you go to meetings and you try to be aware of your patients' needs.