Understanding Breast Implant Illness: Etiology is the Key

The Spectrum of Non-neoplastic Changes Associated With Breast Implants: Histopathology, Imaging, and Clinical Significance

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has been recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. These neoplasms are causally related to textured implants that were used worldwide until recently. Consequently, there is an increased demand for processing periprosthetic capsules, adding new challenges for surgeons, clinicians, and pathologists. In the literature, the focus has been on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma; however, benign complications related to the placement of breast implants occur in up to 20% to 30% of patients. Imaging studies are helpful in assessing patients with breast implants for evidence of implant rupture, changes in tissues surrounding the implants, or regional lymphadenopathy related to breast implants, but pathologic examination is often required. In this review, we couple our experience with a review of the literature to describe a range of benign lesions associated with breast implants that can be associated with different clinical presentations or pathogenesis and that may require different diagnostic approaches. We illustrate the spectrum of the most common of these benign disorders, highlighting their clinical, imaging, gross, and microscopic features. Finally, we propose a systematic approach for the diagnosis and handling of breast implant specimens in general.

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. While 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 is 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 using Pubmed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to search for relevant studies published in the last twenty years.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included with a total of 39,505 implant patients and mean age of 44.2 ± 9.30 years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, nine 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, sixteen studies of 4,109 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" versus "reconstructive" reasons (Cosmetic: 3,864/4,109; 94.0% vs. Reconstruction: 245/4,109; 5.96%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. Our 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.

Silicone Particles in Capsules Around Breast Implants: An Investigation Into Currently Available Implants in North America

BACKGROUND

Breast implants have always been composed of a silicone elastomer envelope filled with either silicone gel or saline. Breast implant illness (BII) is a set of symptoms that has previously been linked to the leakage of silicone particles from the implants into the body.

OBJECTIVES

Our research aimed to quantify the number of silicone particles present in the capsules of breast implants available in North America.

METHODS

Thirty-five periprosthetic capsules were sampled and analyzed, and silicone particles were counted and measured. The capsule surface area was then measured and utilized to calculate particle density and total number of silicone particles.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of capsules analyzed from silicone gel implants contained silicone, with an average of 62 particles per mm3 of capsular tissue. These implants had approximately 1 million silicone particles per capsule. In contrast, none of the saline implant capsules contained silicone. Capsules from macrotextured tissue expanders contained fewer and larger silicone particles.

CONCLUSIONS

Silicone gel implants presented silicone particle bleeding into the periprosthetic capsule, totaling on average 1 million silicone particles per capsule. On the other hand, no silicone particle bleeding was observed from saline breast implants. These data suggest that particle bleeding comes from the inner silicone gel, and not from the smooth outer silicone shell. Previous studies have reported the presence of breast implant illness in patients with both silicone- and saline-filled implants. Therefore, our data suggest that silicone migration is not the sole cause of BII.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Results of a patient survey using an online questionnaire after implant removal for breast implant illness

The use of silicone breast implants has a history of over 60 years. In recent years, specific health issues among implant wearers have repeatedly come into focus. The term "breast implant illness" has been circulating in scientific literature and on social media for several years. It describes a cluster of up to 60 different symptoms. The present results of an online survey conducted within a clinic's patient population of the last 8 years show, among other things, the evolution of 8 reported symptoms before and after breast implant removal. In the comparison before and after, there is a significant reduction in the intensity of symptoms after implant removal. A causal relationship with the removal of the implants is to be presumed.

Consulting the Digital Doctor: Google Versus ChatGPT as Sources of Information on Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and Breast Implant Illness

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare complication associated with the use of breast implants. Breast implant illness (BII) is another potentially concerning issue related to breast implants. This study aims to assess the quality of ChatGPT as a potential source of patient education by comparing the answers to frequently asked questions on BIA-ALCL and BII provided by ChatGPT and Google.

METHODS

The Google and ChatGPT answers to the 10 most frequently asked questions on the search terms "breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma" and "breast implant illness" were recorded. Five blinded breast plastic surgeons were then asked to grade the quality of the answers according to the Global Quality Score (GQS). A Wilcoxon paired t-test was performed to evaluate the difference in GQS ratings for Google and ChatGPT answers. The sources provided by Google and ChatGPT were also categorized and assessed.

RESULTS

In a comparison of answers provided by Google and ChatGPT on BIA-ALCL and BII, ChatGPT significantly outperformed Google. For BIA-ALCL, Google's average score was 2.72 ± 1.44, whereas ChatGPT scored an average of 4.18 ± 1.04 (p < 0.01). For BII, Google's average score was 2.66 ± 1.24, while ChatGPT scored an average of 4.28 ± 0.97 (p < 0.01). The superiority of ChatGPT's responses was attributed to their comprehensive nature and recognition of existing knowledge gaps. However, some of ChatGPT's answers had inaccessible sources.

CONCLUSION

ChatGPT outperforms Google in providing high-quality answers to commonly asked questions on BIA-ALCL and BII, highlighting the potential of AI technologies in patient education.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative study 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 .

The Problem of Diagnostic Criteria of Breast Implant Illness in Women After Breast Reconstruction: Review and Discussion of a Case

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rising trend in the use of silicone breast implants for breast reconstructions after breast cancer treatment, as well as in the aesthetic breast procedures. A cluster of non-specific symptoms related to the presence of silicone implant has been called breast implant illness (BII). However, there are no strict criteria of BII which would specifically define this term. The increasing interest in BII among patients and physicians urges verifying own cases of "on-demand" explantations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this paper, we discussed a case of a patient with initial BII diagnosis, after breast reconstruction, and reviewed the literature on the BII symptoms and aetiology. A decision for aesthetic revision, not explantation, was made as the diagnosis of BII was questioned, and somatisation due to dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result of breast reconstruction was diagnosed.

RESULTS

Improving aesthetics by implant exchange and contralateral mastopexy caused a full recovery from patient's symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Based on our case, we point on the fact that BII diagnosis in patients after breast reconstruction is challenging. We suggest that while considering such a diagnosis and further proceedings, e.g. explantation, especially in patients after breast reconstruction, some exclusion criteria should be considered. Dissatisfaction with the result of the surgery can also lead to somatisation and the presence of real clinical symptoms, which should not be confused with the possible autoimmune reaction to silicone particles.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 removal and simultaneous aesthetic optimization : Possibilities, technical considerations and outcome analysis]

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is currently the leading aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. Thus, there is a high prevalence of women with breast implants demanding serious know-how and expertise concerning long-term complication management. Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. The authors of this article have also been confronted more and more with the unspecified complex of symptoms named breast implant disease (BID), also called breast implant illness (BII). The treatment of choice for BID is implant removal.

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of problems and solutions regarding implant removal. Specific patient analysis according to patients' breast and body configuration. Technical considerations for surgery and preoperative planning. Evaluation of the authors' techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Evaluation of all patients over a period of 3 years requesting implant removal after esthetic augmentation mammoplasty at the authors' department. All patients were treated according to their specific demands regarding breast shape after implant removal. They either received additional mastopexy, lipofilling or both or simple implant removal without further intervention. Demographic, implant-specific, perioperative and postoperative data have been evaluated for all patients. Additionally, all patients were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding satisfaction and outcome.

RESULTS

We observed a trend for more satisfied patients with less invasive procedures (simple implant removal or simultaneous lipofilling vs. explantation and mastopexy ± lipofilling, 1.8 vs. 2.0 or 2.6, p = 0.198). Patients' average scoring was better if they suffered from an implant rupture (1.55 vs. 2.17, p = 0.053). Overall, a high patient satisfaction has been observed for all procedures.

CONCLUSION

Breast implant carriers can suffer from problems and pathologies making implant removal the best solution. Exactly these patients, consulting their doctor for those problems and questions seem to profit from implant removal. Simultaneous lipofilling and mastopexy of the breast are good options to nevertheless generate an esthetically pleasing result.

Patient-reported outcomes: A primer for plastic surgeons

Surgical care today is no longer evaluated only on clinical outcomes but also on holistic patient wellbeing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a representation of the patient's perspective on their results and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to establish PROs as the center of healthcare and plastic surgery, to delineate important PROs in plastic surgery practice and research, to discuss the future of PROs within our discipline, and to encourage surgeons to incorporate PROs into their practice. PROs are an important parallel of clinical outcomes in that they can use the patient's perspective to 1) support clinical findings, 2) detect differences in care when there are no clear clinical differences, 3) track progress longitudinally, and 4) support systemic improvements in healthcare. Plastic surgery as a field is naturally aligned with PROs because, as a discipline, we focus on patient form and function. The emerging forefronts of plastic surgery such as lymphedema care, gender-affirming care, peripheral nerve surgery, migraine surgery, and breast implant illness are critically dependent on PROs. In the next decade, we predict that there will be a continued proliferation of robust PRO measures and integration into healthcare delivery. Outcomes research in surgery should continue to evolve as surgeons provide increasingly more benefits to improve patient wellbeing. Plastic surgeons must continue to play a prominent role in the future of PROs.

Complication Rates after Breast Surgery with the Motiva Smooth Silk Surface Silicone Gel Implants-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In an era where textured devices are being phased out due to concerns about BIA-ALCL, the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants intend to alleviate historical prosthesis-related complications. However, its safety and feasibility remain unelucidated.

METHODS

An analysis of Pubmed, Web of Science, Ovid, and Embase databases was performed. A total of 114 studies were identified initially, and 13 of these met the inclusion criteria and were assessed regarding postoperative parameters such as complication rate or follow-up period.

RESULTS

In 4784 patients who underwent breast augmentation with Motiva SilkSurface breast implants, a total of 250 (5.2%) complications were observed. Short- and medium-term complication rates ranged from 2.8-14.4% and 0.32-16.67%, respectively. The most common complication was early seroma (n = 52, overall incidence = 1.08%), followed by early hematoma (n = 28, overall incidence = 0.54%). The incidence of capsule contracture was 0.54% and breast implant-associated-anaplastic large cell lymphoma was not observed.

DISCUSSION

Although the majority of the studies in the current literature suggest the distinction of the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants in terms of postoperative complications and capsular contracture, its safety and feasibility need to be further elucidated with well-designed, large-scale, multicenter, prospective case-control studies. Other: No funding was received.

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.

The Influence of Personality on Health Complaints and Quality of Life in Women With Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

A causal relation between systemic symptoms and breast implants has not been established. Psychological factors, such as personality and psychological distress, are strongly associated with the development of medically unexplained symptoms. It can be hypothesized that psychological factors may be related to the development of breast implant illness (BII).

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to evaluate the correlation between self-reported health complaints, health- and breast-related quality of life (QoL), and personality, in women with cosmetic breast implants.

METHODS

Women who attended the plastic surgery outpatient clinic of Maastricht University Medical Center between October 2020 and October 2021 for reasons related to their implants and women recruited for a BII study at the Center during this period were invited to participate in this study. Only women who underwent cosmetic breast augmentation were eligible. Participants completed a physical complaints score form and the BREAST-Q, SF-36, and EPQ-RSS questionnaires via an online survey.

RESULTS

In total, 201 women completed the questionnaires. Extroversion and social desirability were predominant personality traits in women with breast implants, followed by neuroticism. Relatively high levels of neuroticism were found compared with normative data. Neuroticism correlated significantly with health status and breast-related QoL. Physical and mental health-related QoL had the strongest correlations with neuroticism (β = -3.94, β = -4.86, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Personality can play a role in the development of complaints. High levels of neuroticism are seen in cosmetic surgery patients and are negatively correlated with subjective health and patient-reported outcomes in women with breast implants. Therefore, neuroticism may be a factor in the development of BII.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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 .