The "PIP problem": clinical and histologic characteristics

Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and management of silicone lymphadenopathy: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Implant-based breast augmentations and reconstructions are one of the most common surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons in the United States, which has rapidly increased in popularity since the 2000s. Silicone lymphadenopathy (SL) is a complication of breast implants that involves migration of silicone to nearby soft tissue/lymph nodes. Data on its clinical features and management is scarce.

METHODS

SL-related search terms were used to find articles in 3 databases. Of 598 articles, 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Demographics, clinical presentation, workup, and management data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 279 cases of SL and 107 with information on initial diagnosis, 35 (33%) were incidental. The most common symptom was painless lymphadenopathy, followed by painful lymphadenopathy. 251 (95%) and 13 (5%) patients had silicone and saline implants, respectively. 149 (68%) patients had implant rupture. Axillary lymphadenopathy was the most affected region (136 cases, 72%), followed by internal mammary (40 cases, 21%), cervical/supraclavicular (36 cases, 19%), and mediastinal (24 cases, 13%) regions. 25% of patients underwent fine-needle aspiration, 12% core needle biopsy, and 59% excisional biopsy. 32% of cases underwent explantation and/or implant exchange. The most common indication for surgery was implant rupture. Histology showed multinucleated giant cells, large histiocytes, and silicone accumulation.

CONCLUSIONS

SL is a complication associated with breast implants. The majority of patients are asymptomatic, and most cases are managed conservatively. Minority need a biopsy and surgical interventions due to abnormal imaging, persistent symptoms, and/or implant rupture. Workup and management should be tailored to the patient.

Complication of Ruptured Poly Implant Prothèse® Breast Implants Combined with AQUAfilling® Gel Injection: A Case Report and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

We describe the first case of a patient who received AQUAfilling^® gel (Biomedica, Prague, Czech Republic) after augmentation with Poly Implant Prothèse^® (PIP) breast implants and later developed breast deformity with bilateral implant rupture.

CASE REPORT

A 49-year-old Korean female patient who received breast augmentation with PIP implants 18 years ago and subsequent insertion of AQUAfilling^® gel 1 year ago visited our center with a chief complaint of pain and decreased implant sizes in both breasts. Breast implant and foreign body removal operation was performed for both breasts under general anesthesia. Intraoperative gross findings, pathologic findings, and tissue culture results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Our diagnosis included rupture of the implants in both breasts with leakage of injected material resulting in inflammation of the pericapsular area and pectoralis muscle. The intraoperative gross findings and results of the pathologic report showed that the implants were exposed with massive leakage of AQUAfilling^® gel in the pericapsular space, and the pectoralis major was mixed with AQUAfilling^® gel-like liquid and tissue with an inflammatory reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should be careful in performing AQUAfilling^® gel injection for breast augmentation, especially when combined with breast implant insertion. AQUAfilling^® gel itself is not yet proven safe in the long term, so more research on this topic is warranted. Additionally, surgeons should be aware of the comparatively high risk of implant rupture and foreign body reaction with PIP implants, and warn patients accordingly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .

Thoracic outlet syndrome following breast implant rupture

We present a patient with bilateral breast implant rupture who developed severe locoregional silicone granulomatous lymphadenopathy. Poly Implant Prothese silicone implants had been used for bilateral breast augmentation 5 years prior. Extracapsular implant rupture and bilateral axillary lymphadenopathy indicated explantation, capsulectomy, and selective lymph node excision. Histology demonstrated silicone lymphadenopathy with no evidence of malignancy. Over the subsequent 12 months, she developed progressive locoregional lymphadenopathy involving bilateral cervical, axillary, and internal mammary groups, resulting in bilateral thoracic outlet syndrome. We report the unusual presentation, progression, and the ultimate surgical management of this patient.

A retrospective analysis of ruptured breast implants

Background

Rupture is an important complication of breast implants. Before cohesive gel silicone implants, rupture rates of both saline and silicone breast implants were over 10%. Through an analysis of ruptured implants, we can determine the various factors related to ruptured implants.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 72 implants that were removed for implant rupture between 2005 and 2014 at a single institution. The following data were collected: type of implants (saline or silicone), duration of implantation, type of implant shell, degree of capsular contracture, associated symptoms, cause of rupture, diagnostic tools, and management.

Results

Forty-five Saline implants and 27 silicone implants were used. Rupture was diagnosed at a mean of 5.6 and 12 years after insertion of saline and silicone implants, respectively. There was no association between shell type and risk of rupture. Spontaneous was the most common reason for the rupture. Rupture management was implant change (39 case), microfat graft (2 case), removal only (14 case), and follow-up loss (17 case).

Conclusions

Saline implants have a shorter average duration of rupture, but diagnosis is easier and safer, leading to fewer complications. Previous-generation silicone implants required frequent follow-up observation, and it is recommended that they be changed to a cohesive gel implant before hidden rupture occurs.