Background: Understanding the impact of breast implants on the histological response in the surrounding fibrous capsule is important; however, consensus is lacking on how to analyze implant capsules histologically. We aimed to develop a standardized histological assessment tool to be used in research potentially improving diagnostic accuracy and treatment strategies for capsular contracture. Methods: Biopsies of breast implant capsules from 480 patients who had undergone breast augmentation or reconstruction were collected and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Initially, biopsies from 100 patients were analyzed to select histological parameters demonstrating the highest relevance and reproducibility. Then, biopsies from the remaining 380 patients were used to determine intra- and interobserver agreements of two blinded observers and agreement with a pathologist. Finally, we tested the association between the parameters and capsular contracture. Results: The histological assessment tool included ten parameters assessing the inflammatory, fibrotic, and foreign-body reaction to breast implants, each graded on two-, three-, or four-point scales. Intra- and interobserver agreements were almost perfect (0.83 and 0.80), and agreement with the pathologist was substantial (0.67). Four parameters were significantly correlated with capsular contracture, namely chronic inflammation with lymphocyte infiltration (p < 0.01), thickness of the collagen layer (p < 0.0001), fiber organization (p < 0.01), and calcification (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is the first validated histological assessment tool for breast implant capsules. The validated tool not only advances our understanding of capsular contracture but also sets a new standard for histological evaluation in breast implant research and clinical diagnostics. No Level Assigned: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.