The Prevalence of Self-Reported Health Complaints and Health-Related Quality of Life in Women With Breast Implants

Breast Implant Illness as a Clinical Entity: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Breast implant illness (BII) has become a contentious subject in recent years. Although some studies have reported associations between breast implants and autoimmune diseases, others have failed to establish a definitive link.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation of the literature surrounding BII, with an emphasis on identifying patient-related factors that may be associated with BII.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published in the last 20 years.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included, which covered 39,505 implant patients with a mean [standard deviation] age of 44.2 [9.30] years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status, with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, 9 studies reported symptom improvement in 83.5% patients. Fifty-three percent of patients undergoing explantation had total capsulectomy. Twenty-eight studies documented total numbers of patients experiencing symptoms related to BII, with 31.3% patients reporting such symptoms. Among these, 16 studies of 4109 BII patients distinguished whether the reason for implantation was cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction. When specified, more patients experiencing BII-related symptoms received implants for "cosmetic" vs "reconstructive" reasons (cosmetic, 3864/4109 [94.0%] vs reconstruction, 245/4109 [5.96%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. The study highlights a potential relationship between BII and indication for implants (cosmetic vs reconstructive) among other variables, offering valuable insight on factors associated with BII and directions for future research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Medical Specialist Care Utilization Prior to the Explantation of Cosmetic Silicone Breast Implants: A Nationwide Retrospective Data Linkage Study

BACKGROUND

Explantation is the proposed treatment for breast implant illness (BII). Little is known about which medical specialists are visited and what diagnoses are made before explantation is provided as the treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated medical specialist care utilization in women with cosmetic breast implants who underwent explantation compared to women who chose breast implant replacement surgery and to women without breast implants.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using data linkage with the Dutch Breast Implant Registry and the Dutch health insurance claims database. Visits to medical specialists were examined over the 3 years before explantation. A total of 832 explantation patients were matched and compared to 1463 breast implant replacement patients and 1664 women without breast implants.

RESULTS

Explantation patients were more likely to have visited > 5 different medical specialties compared to both replacement patients (12.3% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001) and women without breast implants (12.3% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.001). Among explantation patients, women who underwent explantation because of BII were more likely to have visited > 5 different medical specialties compared to women who underwent explantation because of other reasons (25.0% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women who underwent explantation of breast implants had higher utilization of medical specialist care in the years before explantation compared to women who underwent breast implant replacement surgery and women without breast implants. Medical specialist care use was especially high among women for whom BII was the registered reason for explantation. These findings suggest further research is needed into the link between BII and the use of medical specialist care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Patient Satisfaction Using BREAST-Q and Breast Implant Illness after Breast Reconstruction in Transwomen

Background

Gender-affirming breast augmentation comprises an increasing portion of breast augmentations performed by plastic surgeons. Satisfaction and breast implant illness (BII) symptoms in this population have not been well studied. This study aimed to evaluate satisfaction and BII symptoms in transwomen who received nontextured implants as part of their breast reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of transwomen who underwent breast augmentation for gender-affirming surgery. We performed telephone survey evaluation using the BREAST-Q questionnaire preoperatively, 6 months and 1 year after breast implant placement. Survey evaluation asking about BII symptoms was also administered at the same time points.

Results

Twenty-six patients completed the BREAST-Q survey, which demonstrated significantly improved satisfaction postoperatively at 6 and 12 months when compared with median preoperative scores for psychosocial (P < 0.001; P < 0.001), sexual (P < 0.001; P < 0.001), and overall satisfaction with breasts (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Physical well-being of the chest decreased at 6 months (P < 0.001) but improved in comparison with 12 months (P < 0.001). Thirty-four patients completed the BII survey, with 18% reporting symptoms at 3 months and 29% at 1 year. Zero patients requested explantation.

Conclusions

Transwomen exhibit a significant increase in breast, psychosocial, and sexual well-being after breast augmentation. However, patients experienced a decreased physical well-being, and many report symptoms associated with BII. These results can be used to better counsel these individuals preoperatively and set reasonable postoperative expectations. Further studies investigating long-term satisfaction in larger cohorts are needed.

Breast Implant Illness May Be Rooted in Mast Cell Activation: A Case-Controlled Retrospective Analysis

Objective

To investigate the possible association between breast implant illness (BII) and mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), which often manifests increased mast cells (MCs) in assorted tissues and may explain BII symptoms.

Background

Mechanisms by which implants cause BII symptoms remain unclear, but BII and MCAS symptom profiles heavily overlap, warranting investigation of potential linkage.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 20 implant patients who underwent explantation and total capsulectomy; 15 self-reported preoperatively they had BII (subject group); 5 felt they did not [control group 1 (CG1)]. Five prophylactic mastectomy patients constituted control group 2 (CG2). Subjects and CG1 patients completed BII symptom questionnaires preoperatively and multiple points postoperatively. With CD117 staining, average and maximum mast cell counts (MCCs) in resected tissues were determined.

Results

Mean BII symptom score 2 weeks postexplantation was reduced by 77% (P < 0.0001), and 85% by 9 months. Analysis suggested BII in CG1 patients, too, who improved similarly. Among CG2 patients, healthy breast tissue showed mean and maximum MCCs of 5.0/hpf and 6.9/hpf. Mean and maximum MCCs in capsules in BII patients were 11.7/hpf and 16.3/hpf, and 7.6/hpf and 13.3/hpf in CG1 patients. All intergroup comparisons were significantly different (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

MCCs in peri-implant capsules in BII patients are increased; some implanted patients appear to have unrecognized BII. Given that neoantigenic/xenobiotic exposures commonly trigger dysfunctional MCs in MCAS to heighten aberrant mediator expression driving inflammatory and other issues, further investigation of whether BII represents an implant-driven escalation of preexisting MCAS and whether an MCAS diagnosis flags risk for BII seems warranted.

Breast implant illness: Is it causally related to breast implants?

Once believed to be completely inert implants, Silicon Breast Implants (SBIs) have been shown to be able to induce a chronic inflammatory response in the body which can lead to a variety of possible manifestations ranging from the most common capsular contraction to rarer conditions such as malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Among the latter, new syndromes have been consistently recognized: Breast Implant Illness (BII) and autoimmunity/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA syndrome/Shoenfeld's Syndrome). The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying such syndromes are not yet clear and the overlap they show with other common conditions have sparked an important debate in the scientific community regarding their existence and their cause-effect relationship with SBIs. In this article Professor Cohen Tervaert and Professor Bassetto, leading experts in the field, are going to present arguments in favor and against such causal relationship according to the latest scientific evidence. Professor Cohen Tervaert is going to demonstrate how the evidence available is enough to prove a causal relationship as defined by the Bradford Hill's criteria. Professor Bassetto is going to highlight how the many biases that afflict the available evidence prevent us from drawing such conclusions. Professor Shoenfeld is going to moderate the discussion with its insightful conclusions.

The influence of personality on patient-reported outcomes in women undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Despite the lack of hard evidence for causality, some women attribute their systemic complaints to their silicone breast implants. Personality and psychological distress are associated with the development of medically unexplained symptoms. It could be hypothesized that these psychological factors are related to the development of breast implant illness (BII). In a previous study, we found a relationship between personality traits and BII-related complaints in patients with cosmetic breast implants. This association may also exist in patients with implant-based breast reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES

This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between personality, self-reported health complaints, and health- and breast-related quality of life (QoL) in women with implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Women who underwent breast reconstruction between January 2015 and December 2018 in either the Maastricht University Medical Center or Zuyderland Medical Center were invited to participate in this study. Participants were asked to complete a physical complaint score form and the BREAST-Q, SF-36, and EPQ-RSS questionnaires through an online survey. The association between outcomes was analyzed with multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 118 women completed the questionnaires. Social desirability and extroversion were predominant personality traits. Neuroticism levels were comparable with normative data. Neuroticism correlated significantly with health status and breast-related QoL. Health-related QoL had the strongest correlation with neuroticism (β = -2.93, β = -3.41, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that personality, and neuroticism in particular, may contribute to the development of medically unexplained complaints in women with implant-based reconstruction. The influence of personality on BII needs to be further investigated in large prospective studies.

Breast Explantation With Simultaneous Mastopexy and Volume Restoration: An Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Prospective Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients are undergoing explantation to alleviate symptoms attributed to the presence of a prothesis or dissatisfaction with the appearance of their breasts.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aim to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) of simultaneous explantation, capsulectomy, and mastopexy for patients requesting implant removal.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-two simultaneous explantation, capsulectomy, and mastopexy (ECM) procedures were performed in 131 patients from 2009 to 2019. Prospective QoL assessment was administered for all patients. Inclusion criteria included a minimum postoperative follow-up of 6 months and completion of a practice-generated patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaire. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare changes in QoL scores.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up and BMI were 23 months (6 months to 8 years) and 24.8 kg/m2 (18-34 kg/m2), respectively. Mean age was 48.3 years (26-75 years). Autologous fat grafting was performed simultaneously in patients 47.3% (n = 62). The complication rate was 3.8% (n = 10 breasts) in 9 patients (6.9%). The overall reoperation rate was 7.3% of procedures (n = 19 breasts) and 9.2% of patients (n = 12), including secondary autologous fat grafting (11.3%, n = 7). PRO results demonstrated a significant improvement in all QoL domains, including physical well-being (P < .005), psychological well-being (P < .005), sexual well-being (P < .005), breast shape (P < .005), and breast appearance (P < .005). With respect to breast implant illness symptoms, 59 patients (88.1%) noted reduced pain, myalgias/arthralgias, and fatigue after ECM.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents an effective paradigm to manage implant removal through simultaneous explantation, capsulectomy, and mastopexy with acceptable clinical outcomes and a significant improvement in QoL and breast aesthetics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The Areola study: design and rationale of a cohort study on long-term health outcomes in women with implant-based breast reconstructions

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstructions contribute considerably to the quality of life of breast cancer patients. A knowledge gap exists concerning the potential role of silicone breast implants in the development of so called 'breast implant illness' and autoimmune diseases in breast cancer survivors with implant-based reconstructions. Breast implant illness (BII) is a constellation of non-specific symptoms reported by a small group of women with silicone breast implants.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Areola study is a multi-centre retrospective cohort study with prospective follow-up aiming to assess the risk of BII and autoimmune diseases in female breast cancer survivors with and without silicone breast implants. In this report, we set out the rationale, study design and methodology of this cohort study. The cohort consists of breast cancer survivors who received surgical treatment with implant-based reconstruction in six major hospitals across the Netherlands in the period between 2000 and 2015. As comparison group, a frequency-matched sample of breast cancer survivors without breast implants will be selected. An additional group of women who received breast augmentation surgery in the same years will be selected to compare their characteristics and health outcomes with those of breast cancer patients with implants. All women still alive will be invited to complete a web-based questionnaire covering health-related topics. The entire cohort including deceased women will be linked to population-based databases of Statistics Netherlands. These include a registry of hospital diagnostic codes, a medicines prescription registry and a cause-of-death registry, through which diagnoses of autoimmune diseases will be identified. Outcomes of interest are the prevalence and incidence of BII and autoimmune diseases. In addition, risk factors for the development of BII and autoimmune disorders will be assessed among women with implants.

DISCUSSION

The Areola study will contribute to the availability of reliable information on the risks of BII and autoimmune diseases in Dutch breast cancer survivors with silicone breast implants. This will inform breast cancer survivors and aid future breast cancer patients and their treating physicians to make informed decisions about reconstructive strategies after mastectomy.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2^nd 2022 (NCT05400954).

The effect of explantation on systemic disease symptoms and quality of life in patients with breast implant illness: a prospective cohort study

Silicone breast implants (SBIs) have been subject to scientific scrutiny since the 1960's because of their potential link with systemic disease symptoms. Breast implant illness (BII) is a cluster of over 56 (systemic) symptoms attributed by patients to their SBIs. BII remains an unofficial medical diagnosis, although its symptoms include but are not limited to the clinical manifestations of autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). The aim of this study was to prospectively analyse the effect of explantation on clinical manifestations of ASIA/BII symptoms, as well as to compare (breast-surgery specific) QoL in patients pre- and postoperatively while recording relevant perioperative/patient data. A prospective cohort study was conducted on 140 patients consulting a single surgeon for explantation of SBIs at a single clinic from 2019 to 2021 via their general practitioner, a medical specialist or self-referral. Of all patients, medical (implant) history, lifestyle factors and biometric data were obtained. Patients filled out a novel ASIA/BII symptom-survey termed the ASIA-scale, three domains of the SF-36 and the augmentation module of the BREAST-Q before and four months after the operation. A total of 109 patients completed both the pre- and postoperative survey with a mean follow-up duration of 205 days. There was a significant decrease in all individual symptom scores as well as ASIA-scale summary scores after explantation (p < .001). All SF-36 subdomains showed significant improvement postoperatively (p < .001). The BREAST-Q subdomain 'satisfaction with breasts' improved significantly after explantation (p = .036). No statistically significant association was found between any clinical parameters (such as age, capsulectomy, rupture etc.) and the recovery of symptom scores. This is the largest prospective cohort study on SBI explantation to date showing significant improvement of the most common systemic complaints in SBI patients as well as improvement of satisfaction with breasts and overall quality of life.

The effect of explantation on systemic disease symptoms and quality of life in patients with breast implant illness: a prospective cohort study

Silicone breast implants (SBIs) have been subject to scientific scrutiny since the 1960's because of their potential link with systemic disease symptoms. Breast implant illness (BII) is a cluster of over 56 (systemic) symptoms attributed by patients to their SBIs. BII remains an unofficial medical diagnosis, although its symptoms include but are not limited to the clinical manifestations of autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). The aim of this study was to prospectively analyse the effect of explantation on clinical manifestations of ASIA/BII symptoms, as well as to compare (breast-surgery specific) QoL in patients pre- and postoperatively while recording relevant perioperative/patient data. A prospective cohort study was conducted on 140 patients consulting a single surgeon for explantation of SBIs at a single clinic from 2019 to 2021 via their general practitioner, a medical specialist or self-referral. Of all patients, medical (implant) history, lifestyle factors and biometric data were obtained. Patients filled out a novel ASIA/BII symptom-survey termed the ASIA-scale, three domains of the SF-36 and the augmentation module of the BREAST-Q before and four months after the operation. A total of 109 patients completed both the pre- and postoperative survey with a mean follow-up duration of 205 days. There was a significant decrease in all individual symptom scores as well as ASIA-scale summary scores after explantation (p < .001). All SF-36 subdomains showed significant improvement postoperatively (p < .001). The BREAST-Q subdomain 'satisfaction with breasts' improved significantly after explantation (p = .036). No statistically significant association was found between any clinical parameters (such as age, capsulectomy, rupture etc.) and the recovery of symptom scores. This is the largest prospective cohort study on SBI explantation to date showing significant improvement of the most common systemic complaints in SBI patients as well as improvement of satisfaction with breasts and overall quality of life.

Prevalence of Local Postoperative Complications and Breast Implant Illness in Women With Breast Implants

IMPORTANCE

It is unknown how often breast implant illness (BII) is the indication for revision in women with silicone breast implants.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how often women with silicone breast implants have their implants explanted or replaced because of BII compared with local postoperative complications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A legacy cohort study on breast implant revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and a prospective cohort study on breast implantation and revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (with follow-up until December 31, 2020). Data were obtained from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to August 2022.

EXPOSURES

Silicone breast implant.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Breast implant revision with the indication BII or local postoperative complications.

RESULTS

All 12 882 cosmetic breast implants (6667 women; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.7] years) and 2945 reconstructive breast implants (2139 women, mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.3] years) in the legacy cohort and all 47 564 cosmetic breast implants (24 120 women, mean [SD] age, 32.3 [9.7] years) and 5928 reconstructive breast implants (4688 women, mean [SD] age, 50.9 [11.5] years) in the prospective cohort were included for analysis. In the prospective cohort, 739 cosmetic breast implants (1.6%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.8 (0.9-3.1) years, and 697 reconstructive breast implants (11.8%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.1 (0.5-1.9) years. BII was registered as the reason for revision in 35 cosmetic revisions (4.7%) and 5 reconstructive revisions (0.7%) in the prospective cohort, corresponding to 0.1% of the inserted implants. In the legacy cohort, 536 cosmetic revisions (4.2%) and 80 reconstructive breast implant revisions (2.7%) were performed because of BII.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of women with silicone breast implants, BII was an uncommon indication for revision compared with local complications, both in the short and long term. In contrast to the increasing public interest in BII, these results showed that local complications are a far more common reason for breast implant revision.

Neuroimaging in Breast Implant Illness: An fMRI Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Some women with breast implants report systemic and cognitive symptoms known as breast implant illness (BII), which are very similar to those of fibromyalgia. Functional MRI (fMRI) has shown altered brain activity in fibromyalgia patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether brain alterations could be observed in BII patients by fMRI.

METHODS

Women aged 18 to 76 with silicone breast implants for cosmetic reasons were recruited through a Dutch online BII support organization (MKS) and through the Maastricht University Medical Center. Study participants comprised 12 women with BII and 12 women without symptoms. Participants completed questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, medical history, psychosocial complaints (Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire), cognitive failure (Mini-Mental State Examination), and pain intensity and pain-related disability (Chronic Pain Grade Scale). Subsequently, brain images of all participants were obtained by resting-state fMRI and diffusion tensor imaging in a 3-T MRI scanner (Siemens Medical System, Erlangen, Germany).

RESULTS

Eleven BII patients and 12 healthy controls were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups and the mean silicone exposure was 15 years. Patients scored significantly higher than controls on both pain intensity and disability. Patients scored worse on depression, somatization, distress, and anxiety compared with asymptomatic women. Mini-Mental State Examination scores were normal. However, the analyses of both functional connectivity and structural integrity showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study showed no evidence of brain alterations in BII patients. However, patients scored significantly worse on psychosocial symptoms than controls. Psychological factors appear to play an important role in BII and should be further investigated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Impact of Capsulectomy Type on Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 1

Background

Breast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used to describe a variety of symptoms by patients with breast implants for which there are no abnormal physical or laboratory findings to explain their symptoms. There currently exists a difference of opinion among clinicians and patients concerning the diagnosis and treatment of patients self-reporting BII.

Objectives

The first aim of this study was to determine if there is a valid indication for “en bloc” capsulectomy in patients self-reporting BII and if the type of capsulectomy performed alters long-term symptom improvement. The second goal was to identify any clinical laboratory differences between the cohorts. This study was funded by the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF).

Methods

A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. The subject’s baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, was obtained before surgery and at 3-6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Blood was collected from all 3 cohorts and implant capsules were collected from Cohorts A and B.

Results

150 patients were enrolled between 2019-2021. Follow-up at 3-6 weeks for all 3 cohorts was between 98%-100%, 78%-98% at 6-months, and 1 year data is currently at 80%. The type of capsulectomy; intact total, total, or partial all showed similar symptom improvement with no statistical difference in the reduction of symptoms based on the type of capsulectomy.

Conclusions

This study addresses one of the most discussed questions by plastic surgeons, patients, their advocates, and social media. The findings show that patients who self-report BII demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms after explantation and that this improvement persists for at least 6 months. This improvement in self-reported systemic symptoms was seen regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed.

Level of Evidence: 2

Breast Implant Illness: Surgical, Autoimmune, and Breast Reconstruction Associations

Breast implant illness refers to a combination of different symptoms related to breast implant surgery, including fatigue, brain fog, and arthralgias. This malaise occurs after cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgeries, although it has not been proven to be a disease. Even recent studies have reported concluding statements of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment as unclear and widely unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to determine the associations between the manifestations of breast implant illness in surgery and breast reconstruction, as well as the autoimmune responses involved. Complications associated with breast implants include breast pain, capsular contracture, infections, as well as other manifestations specific to breast reconstruction. Moreover, patients with implants may present with new-onset systemic sclerosis, Sjögren’s syndrome, and connective tissue diseases. However, the incidence of capsular contracture has steadily decreased with each generation of implants, particularly since the development of textured implants, as well as with the use of antibiotics and antiseptic pocket irrigation. However, the incidence of anaplastic large cell lymphoma has increased with the use of textured implants. Remarkably, the autoimmune response to these implants remains unclear. Therefore, close follow-up, careful observation of any symptom presentation, and evidence-based treatment decisions are necessary for patients with breast implants.

Breast Implant Illness (BII): Real Syndrome or a Social Media Phenomenon? A Narrative Review of the Literature

Breast implant illness (BII) is a condition characterized by elusive diagnostic criteria and self-reported diverse disabling and distressing physical and psychological symptoms. With currently significant increase in public awareness, BII is perhaps becoming the most controversial subject in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, generating heated debates between those who do not believe such a condition exists and those who demand its acceptance as a recognized diagnosis. Silicone incompatibility has been associated with "autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants" (ASIA syndrome) or Shoenfeld's syndrome. It is still unclear, however, whether BII symptoms would have occurred if no implants had been placed in the first place. The purpose of this literature review is to analyze critically the current state of scientific evidence related to this condition. Though the psychosomatic theory is most likely, the mechanism of BII symptoms is probably multifactorial. At present, BII being an underlying connective tissue disorder cannot be confirmed; moreover, whether improved aesthetic outcome and patient's overall satisfaction with the profile of their reconstructed or augmented breasts translate into decreased self-reported BII symptoms is still not well elucidated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Effects of Silicone Breast Implants on Human Cell Types In Vitro: A Closer Look on Host and Implant

BACKGROUND

Silicone (gel) breast implants (SBI) are used world-wide for breast augmentation, and reconstruction or to correct breast deformities. They consist of two compounds: an elastomer silicone shell (envelope) and a silicone gel filler (core). Breast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used for women with SBI, who suffer from various of symptoms including myalgia, arthralgia, fatigue, fever, dry eyes and/or dry mouth (sicca), as well as cognitive disturbances, which are rated by these woman as response to SBI. The pathogenesis of these adverse effects as well as the histocompatibility and the SBI-cell interaction of silicone and its surrounding tissue (implant-host tissue interface) is a subject of current research. The main purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding the effects of silicone (gel and elastomer surfaces) of a SBI on different human cell types from experimental - in vitro - models.

METHODS

A comprehensive research was conducted by two independent reviewers in March and July of 2020 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

A number of 1328 articles on this topic were initially identified, of which 62 could be finally included an analysed in this review.

CONCLUSION

SBI may lead to a physiologic pro-inflammatory and foreign body host response with fibrous encapsulation accompanied by a disturbed Th17/Treg balance and IL-17 production. No causal relationship is known for systemic symptoms and/or autoimmune outcomes in the context of BII.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Breast implant illness: scientific evidence of its existence

INTRODUCTION

More than one million breast augmentation procedures using silicone breast implants (SBI) have been performed worldwide. Adverse events of SBI include local complications such as pain, swelling, redness, infections, capsular contracture, implant rupture and gel-bleed. Furthermore, patients experience systemic symptoms such as chronic fatigue, arthralgias, myalgias, pyrexia, sicca, and cognitive dysfunction. These symptoms received different names such as autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) due to silicone incompatibility syndrome and breast implant illness (BII). Because of chronic immune activation, BII/ASIA, allergies, autoimmune diseases, immune deficiencies and finally lymphomas may develop in SBI patients.

AREAS COVERED

Causality for SBI-related BII/ASIA is reviewed. To address the role of silicone implants in promoting causality, we utilized the Bradford-Hill criteria, with results highlighted in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

We conclude that there is a causal association between SBIs and BII/ASIA. Using data derived from patients with BII/ASIA and from other medically implanted devices, there appears to be clear pathogenic relationship between SBI and BII/ASIA. Breast implants cause characteristic systemic reactions in certain women, leading to symptoms of sufficient severity to warrant device removal. The morbidity suffered is variable. SBI removal resolves the symptoms in most women and removal is the most effective treatment.

Breast-related and body-related quality of life following autologous breast reconstruction is superior to implant-based breast reconstruction - A long-term follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

The better survival rates after breast cancer allow for setting of long-term goals, such as Quality of Life (QoL) and aesthetic outcomes following breast reconstruction. Studies find a higher breast-related QoL and greater satisfaction with breasts following autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) compared to implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). However, aesthetic results from donor sites can influence body image. This concern is little addressed in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the long-term breast-related and body-related QoL of women who underwent ABR to women who underwent IBR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted between November and December 2020 among women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction between January 2015 and December 2018. A general questionnaire, the BREAST-Q, and the BODY-Q were used to collect data. Multivariable linear regression was performed to adjust differences in Q-scores for potential confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 336 patients were included (112 IBR, 224 ABR). Autologous reconstruction resulted in significantly higher mean scores in all subdomains of the BREAST-Q. On the BODY-Q, IBR scored significantly higher on scars, while ABR scored moderately to significantly higher on all other scales. Despite a lower mean score on Hips & outer thighs in women with Lateral Thigh Perforator (LTP) flap reconstruction, no negative influence on body image was found in these women.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term breast-related and body-related outcomes of ABR are superior to IBR. Donor site aesthetic does not adversely affect body image in women who underwent free flap breast reconstruction.