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

The Mandatory German Breast Implant Registry Law: A Model for Sustainable Implant Registries

BACKGROUND

Recurrent scandals involving breast implants have revealed that scientific evidence on the performance of these devices is lacking, and passive monitoring systems are not capable of detecting problems at an early stage. The German health authorities therefore decided to implement a prospective, mandatory registry.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to provide information about the advantages of implementing a mandatory registry, the potential hurdles involved, and to establish structural requirements that future registries can use.

METHODS

Since 2018, the authors have assisted the German Ministry of Health in refining the Implant Law and its implementation. They adapted an internationally consented dataset, promoted international data amplification and conducted monthly trial inputs for over 2 years. By identifying several key issues they were able to assist in developing solutions.

RESULTS

The cooperation with the authorities was characterized by appreciation of the authors' expertise and previous international work. Challenges included data privacy issues, federal competence, longitudinal follow-up, and contact data; as well as associated costs and technical solutions for data inclusion and the use of information technology to communicate with stakeholders. Addressing these challenges required considerable interference with personal rights and complementary measures for all stakeholders. Extensive structural precautions were taken to safeguard personal data privacy as far as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience and lessons learned can guide registries seeking to engage in high levels of evidence data. The authors describe their approach, the obstacles they encountered, and the strategies employed to overcome the setbacks of other registries.

A non-manufacturer-sponsored, retrospective study to assess 2-year safety outcomes of the BellaGel® SmoothFine as compared with its competitors in the context of the first Korean case of a medical device fraud

BACKGROUND

We conducted this study to assess preliminary 2-year safety outcomes of an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty using the BellaGel® SmoothFine in the context of the first Korean case of a medical device fraud.

METHODS

Our clinical series of the patients (n = 579; 1,158 breasts) received augmentation using the BellaGel® SmoothFine, Naturgel™, Motiva Ergonomix™, Eurosilicone Round Collection™, Natrelle® INSPIRA™, Natrelle® 410, Mentor® MemoryGel Xtra or Microthane®. The patients were evaluated for incidences of postoperative complications and Kaplan-Meier survival and hazards.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 101 cases (17.4%) of postoperative complications; these include 31 cases (5.4%) of shape deformity, 21 cases (3.6%) of CC, 18 cases (3.1%) of early seroma, 8 cases (1.4%) of infection, 5 cases (0.9%) of early hematoma, 1 case (0.2%) of delayed hematoma, 1 case (0.2%) of rupture and 1 case (0.2%) of ripping. Moreover, there were also 15 cases (2.6%) of other complications. There were significant differences in incidences of postoperative complications between the breast implants from different manufacturers (P = 0.034). The Natrelle® 410 showed the longest survival (333.3±268.2 [141.5-525.1] days). A subgroup analysis showed that there were no significant differences in incidences of postoperative complications between the breast implants (P = 0.831). Moreover, the Natrelle® INSPIRA™ showed the longest survival (223.7±107.1 [-42.3-489.6] days).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we describe preliminary 2-year safety outcomes of an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty using the BellaGel® SmoothFine in the context of the first Korean case of a medical device fraud.

Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.

METHODS

In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.

RESULTS

As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).

CONCLUSION

This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture.

The Expanding Role of Diagnostic Ultrasound in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Ultrasound in plastic surgery is quickly finding new applications. Ultrasound surveillance may replace ineffective individual risk stratification and chemoprophylaxis for deep venous thromboses. Abdominal penetration can be a catastrophic complication of liposuction. Preoperative screening for fascial defects may reduce risk. Limiting buttock fat injections to the subcutaneous plane is critical for patient safety, but it is difficult to know one’s injection plane.

Methods:

The author’s use of diagnostic ultrasound was evaluated from May 2017 to May 2018. Ultrasound scans were used routinely to detect deep venous thromboses. Patients undergoing abdominal liposuction and/or abdominoplasty were scanned for possible hernias. Other common applications included the evaluation of breast implants, breast masses, and seroma management. The device was used in surgery in 3 patients to assess the plane of buttock fat injection.

Results:

One thousand ultrasound scans were performed during the 1-year study period. A distal deep venous thrombosis was detected in 2 patients. In both cases, the thrombosis resolved within 1 month, confirmed by follow-up ultrasound scans. A lateral (tangential) fat injection method was shown to safely deposit fat above the gluteus maximus fascia.

Conclusions:

Ultrasound scans are highly accurate, noninvasive, and well-tolerated by patients. Some of these applications are likely to improve patient safety. Early detection of deep venous thromboses is possible. Unnecessary anticoagulation may be avoided. Subclinical abdominal defects may be detected. Ultrasound may be used in the office to evaluate breast implants, masses, and seromas. In surgery, this device confirms the level of buttock fat injection.

Efficacy of ultrasound, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting breast implant rupture: A retrospective study of 175 reconstructive and aesthetic sub-pectoral breast augmentation cases

To date, the effectiveness of radiological imaging in detecting silicone breast implant rupture is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of radiological imaging when diagnosing a rupture. In this study, 175 patients with 242 breast implants were included, of which 168 and 74 implants were used for breast reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation, respectively. All patients who underwent revision surgery, between January 2015 and June 2016, following breast augmentation or reconstruction were included, regardless of any pre-operative diagnosis of rupture that had been made. The diagnosis of intracapsular rupture was verified intraoperatively and compared to the pre-operative findings. With regard to pre-operative diagnostic imaging methods, we compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, and ultrasonography (US) findings. Among the 242 implants that were explanted, 35 clinical ruptures were confirmed and compared with the related radiological findings. We reported 22 false positives and 15 false negatives. US was the least specific and least accurate method because of its lowest positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Mammography was the most specific and most accurate method, with the highest PPV (96%). Surprisingly, MRI was the most sensitive; however, it was neither the most specific nor the most accurate method despite having the highest NPV (98%). After comparing these three radiological techniques, we conclude that US along with MRI can be useful for young patients. Mammography, which was characterised by high specificity and accuracy, could be useful along with MRI in investigating patients over the age of 40.