A Nationwide Study of Connective Tissue Disease and Other Rheumatic Conditions Among Danish Women With Long-Term Cosmetic Breast Implantation

Understanding Breast Implant Illness: Etiology is the Key

Because breast augmentation is one of the most popular cosmetic procedures, the issue of implant-related complications has been widely debated ever since the FDA approved the use of implants in 1962. Although decades have passed, breast implant illness (BII) still represents a poorly defined and controversial complication. With ongoing nonscientific discussion in the mainstream media and on social media, revealing the etiology of BII is urgent because knowledge of this subject ultimately influences patients' decisions. Little or no scientific research is currently available on BII and no final conclusions regarding its etiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic criteria, or treatment have been made. This review aims to give an overview of the hypotheses on the etiology of BII and seeks inspiration to improve the conditions of BII patients.

Risk of rheumatic disease in breast implant users: a qualitative systematic review

Background

Recent studies on the risk of rheumatic disease among breast implant users have reported conflicting results. The primary objective of this study was to provide a systematic and critical review of the literature on the association between breast implants and the risk of rheumatic disease.

Methods

A qualitative systematic review was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM-Reviews and CINAHL Complete from database inception to June 23rd, 2021. Eligible papers were full-length articles in English or French reporting original data on the incident risk of rheumatic disease among individuals with and without breast implants. Data were extracted from published reports and appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The main outcome was incident risk of systemic sclerosis (SSc), Sjögren's syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fibromyalgia and other rheumatic disorders and symptoms.

Results

Out of 3,425 identified citations, 86 met inclusion criteria. Two cohort studies suggested a two-fold increase in risk of SSc, whereas three case-control studies showed no increase in risk. Three cohort studies did not find an increased risk of incident and confirmed SS among breast implant users, however symptoms of sicca, myalgia and fatigue were reported more frequently. A meta-analysis of heterogenous studies reported a less than two-fold increase in risk of RA. Studies did not support an association with SLE. Insufficient evidence was available for autoimmune myositis and other rheumatic diseases. Implant rupture detected on imaging was not clearly associated with incident rheumatic disease, although no studies specifically examined the risk associated with acute/traumatic rupture. Little data was available on the safety of saline breast implants. Explantation often led to temporary improvement.

Conclusions

Based on a small number of high-quality and methodologically robust studies, an association between breast implants and a small increase in risk of SSc and RA could not be excluded. Symptoms of sicca, myalgia and fatigue were reported more frequently among breast implant users. Overall, there remains much uncertainty in regard to the association between breast implants and the risk of incident rheumatic diseases. Individuals considering the placement of breast implants should be informed of this uncertainty.

Trial Registration

This study was registered in the PROSPERO database (#CRD42019133616).

Breast implant illness: a topic in review

Recently, the term breast implant illness has become popularized in social media to describe a constellation of symptoms which have been attributed to a patient's breast implants. These symptoms include fatigue, chest pain, hair loss, headaches, chills, photosensitivity, rash, and chronic pain amongst others. While physicians aim to treat these physical symptoms, currently the evidence supports the safety of silicone breast implants. This article entitled "Breast implant illness: a topic in review" presents an up-to-date review focusing on the safety of silicone breast implants. Patients retain the right to decide to keep or remove their breast implants and for those who choose to pursue explantation, they should be advised to seek the care of a board-certified plastic surgeon. As a scientific community is our duty to continue to conduct well-designed scientific studies to gain more insight into the safety of breast implants as it related to cancer detection, autoimmune disease, and other health concerns to improve patient safety, awareness, and education. This review article aims to delineate both the content and timing of all research and evidence as it pertains to the newly coined phrase "breast implant illness". The authors of this study support that currently there have not been any concrete or evidence-based studies which support the formation of a new syndrome "silicone implant illness".

Silicone Implant Illness: Science versus Myth?

The purpose of this Special Topic article is to present the current state of scientific evidence related to the safety of silicone breast implants. There is presently overwhelming evidence to support the safety of silicone breast implants. Ultimately, the decision to obtain, keep, or remove breast implants is the choice of the patient. If a patient chooses to have her breast implants removed, it is important to find a board-certified plastic surgeon with expertise in breast surgery. Ongoing studies are strongly encouraged in all areas, from cancer detection to autoimmune disease, as we strive for improved patient safety, patient awareness, and patient education. To the best of our body of scientific knowledge to date, there have not been any concrete or evidence-based studies or peer-reviewed data concerning the formation of a new syndrome: "silicone implant illness." Silicone breast implants are used in nearly 300,000 breast augmentation and 100,000 breast reconstruction operations annually in the United States. Silicone gel-filled implants were first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1962. Since that time, few medical devices have been studied as closely for their safety and associated adverse outcomes. Despite multiple generations of implant shells and gel fillers, the basic components remain as originally designed.

Severe ASIA syndrome associated with lymph node, thoracic, and pulmonary silicone infiltration following breast implant rupture: experience with four cases

Silicone has been considered biologically inert; thus it has been employed in many medical devices and nowadays is commonly used in plastic surgery for mammary prosthesis. It is well tolerated in most cases. However, autoimmune disorders and siliconomas with granulomatous reactions after silicone implant rupture have been described. We report cases of four women who developed systemic disorders following rupture of silicone breast implants resulting in lymph node and thoracic silicone infiltration. The symptoms in these cases, including arthralgia, myalgia, generalized weakness, severe fatigue, sleeping disturbances, cognitive impairment, memory loss, irritable bowel syndrome, and weight loss, clearly match the criteria of the recently defined autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).

Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: a prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy

INTRODUCTION

The risk of Poly Implant Prosthesis (PIP) breast implant failure has been quantified by the Department of Health as 2-6 times greater than other brands. In the UK, removal of PIP breast implants is recommended when failure is suspected from patient history or clinical findings. Owing to conflicting reports of accuracy in current literature, ultrasound is not recommended as a routine investigation. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of patient history, clinical impression, and ultrasound at diagnosing implant failure in a large consecutive series of women against the reference standard. We aimed to provide evidence in response to current guidelines and help guide best practice.

METHODS

All patients from January 2012-January 2013 who underwent PIP breast implant explantation at the Spire Murrayfield Hospital were prospectively evaluated. Operative findings were correlated to pre-operative results of patient history, clinical impression and ultrasound imaging. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 192 women who underwent 384 PIP implant explantations from January 2012 to January 2013 were included. Twenty-three patients (12.0%) reported a positive patient history pre-operatively. In 35 patients (18%), failure was pre-operatively diagnosed clinically. Intra-operatively, 80 implants (21%) in 63 women (33%) had failed. The sensitivity of patient history, clinical impression and ultrasound was 12%, 34%, and 91%, respectively. The specificity was 88%, 89%, and 97%, respectively. Ultrasound was 96% accurate at diagnosing PIP implant failure, whilst patient history and clinical impression were 63% and 71% accurate, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound provides a far more reliable test of implant failure than patient history or clinical impression. Considering the availability, cost and number of women in the UK with PIP implants, we would recommend high-resolution ultrasound be implemented as a routine investigation.

Allergan’s silicone gel breast implants

In the USA, women seeking breast implants for augmentation, revision or reconstruction can choose between saline-filled devices and round, silicone gel-filled devices. Form-stable, highly cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implants are marketed in other countries and are currently under review by the US FDA. Allergan has conducted clinical studies to investigate the safety and effectiveness of its round and anatomical (Style 410) devices for US marketing approval. The most frequently reported complications were reoperation, implant removal with replacement, implant malposition and capsular contracture. The FDA approved the round devices in 2006. The weight of the scientific literature suggests that silicone gel-filled breast implants do not increase a patient's risk of cancer, autoimmune disease, reproductive effects or suicide. As differently shaped, cohesive breast implants continue to be introduced, breast implant surgery will become more customized to the patient's biological conditions and desires.

The periprosthetic capsule and connective tissue diseases: a piece in the puzzle of autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

Breast prostheses have been criticized for being responsible for triggering systemic autoimmune disease. The presence of breast implants causes a natural foreign body reaction characterized by the infiltration of macrophages and T-cells. Using PubMed, Medline and eMedicine, we performed a systematic literature review on the stages of periprosthetic capsule formation and cells involved in order to understand which immunological pathways could be responsible for giving rise to, and the development of, connective tissue disease such as systemic sclerosis. We focused on the relationship between tissue growth factor- β, interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 and T helper 17 or T regulatory cells, as well as on their effects on the different steps of capsular tissue formation. A disturbance in the modulation of these key cytokines may be responsible, in susceptible individuals, for a perpetuation of the inflammatory reaction which can locally lead to capsular contracture and at the systemic level may contribute to triggering autoimmune diseases.

Silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease: no association

The association of silicone breast implants with connective tissue diseases (CTDs), including systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia, as well as a hypothesized new "atypical" disease, which does not meet established diagnostic criteria for any known CTD, has been extensively studied. We have reviewed the epidemiologic literature regarding an association between cosmetic breast implants and CTDs, with particular emphasis on results drawn from the most recent investigations, many of which are large cohort studies with long-term follow-up, as well as on those studies that address some of the misinformation and historically widespread claims regarding an association between breast implants and CTDs. These claims have been unequivocally refuted by the remarkably consistent evidence from published studies, as well as numerous independent meta-analyses and critical reviews, which have demonstrated that cosmetic breast implants are not associated with a subsequent increased occurrence of individual CTDs or all CTDs combined, including fibromyalgia. Moreover, there is no credible evidence for the conjectured excess of "atypical" CTD among women with cosmetic breast implants, or of a rheumatic symptom profile unique to these women. No increased risk of CTDs is evident in women with extracapsular ruptures in two studies, which evaluated risk by implant rupture status, and no consistent association has been observed between silicone breast implants and a variety of serologic markers or autoantibodies. Thus, any claims that remain regarding an association between cosmetic breast implants and CTDs are not supported by the scientific literature but rather are a residual byproduct of the unprecedented large-scale product liability litigation in the USA.

Breast prostheses and connective tissue disease (CTD): myth or reality?

Since their first appearance, breast prostheses have been criticized as being both responsible for and giving rise to systemic disease. The literature contains many reports on the subject, and theories were controversial from the 1980s to the 2000s. The aim of this review was to gather together the most important studies on breast prostheses and systemic disease, with particular attention to connective tissue disease (CTD), in order to verify any relationship between silicone breast implants and the occurrence of pathologies.

[Etiology and pathophysiology of fibromyalgia syndrome and chronic widespread pain]

OBJECTIVE

To write a systematic review on the etiology and pathophysiology of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and of chronic widespread pain (CWP).

METHODS

An interdisciplinary level-3 guideline (i.e. systematic literature search and assessment, logic analysis, formal consensus procedure) for the diagnosis and therapy of FMS was created in cooperation with 10 medical and psychological societies and 2 patient self-help organizations. A literature search was performed covering all available review articles on the etiology and pathophysiology of FMS and CWP using the Cochrane Collaboration Reviews (1993-12/2006), Medline (1980-2006), PsychInfo (1966-12/2006), and Scopus (1980-12/2006). For the assignment of evidence classes the system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine was applied. Consensus was achieved by a multi-step nominal group procedure.

RESULTS

FMS aggregates in families (evidence level 2c). Physical and psychological stress at the workplace are risk factors for the development of CWP and FMS. Affective disorders are risk factors for the development and maintenance of FMS. Operant learning mechanisms and sensitization are risk factors for the chronification of FMS (evidence levels 2b). Several factors are associated with the pathophysiology of FMS, but the causal relationship is unclear. This includes alterations of central pain pathways, hyporeactivity of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, increased systemic pro-inflammatory and reduced anti-inflammatory cytokine profiles and disturbances in the dopaminergic and serotonergic systems.

CONCLUSIONS

FMS is the common final product of various etiological factors and pathophysiological mechanisms.

Breast implant rupture and connective tissue disease: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Large-scale epidemiologic studies to date have not found any credible association between silicone breast implants and either well-defined connective tissue diseases or undefined or atypical connective tissue diseases. It has been hypothesized that implant rupture could prompt an immunologic reaction giving rise to autoimmune or related diseases. In this article, the authors review the available literature on implant ruptures and connective tissue disease.

METHODS

Articles were identified from PubMed and by cross-checking reference lists of retrieved articles.

RESULTS

Five publications were identified. In none of the studies were diseases or symptoms related to well-defined or ill-defined connective tissue diseases associated with rupture status.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be little scientific basis for any association between implant rupture and well-defined connective tissue disease or undefined or atypical connective tissue diseases. The concept of silicone-related disease was developed by rheumatologists based on highly selected groups of symptomatic breast implant patients seen in their practices. It is likely that nonspecific complications or symptoms related perhaps to capsular contracture or implant rupture may be misinterpreted as representing a systemic disease.