A Different Perspective on Breast Implant Surface Texturization and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL)

Breast Implant Capsule: A Murine Model Comparing Capsular Contracture Susceptibility Among Six Breast Implants Available in the Market

BACKGROUND

Breast implant capsule development and behavior are mainly determined by implant surface combined with other external factors such as intraoperative contamination, radiation or concomitant pharmacologic treatment. Thus, there are several diseases: capsular contracture, breast implant illness or Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), that have been correlated with the specific type of implant placed. This is the first study to compare all major implant and texture models available in the market on the development and behave of the capsules. Through a histopathological analysis, we compared the behavior of different implant surfaces and how different cellular and histological properties give rise to different susceptibilities to develop capsular contracture among these devices.

METHODS

A total of 48 Wistar female rats were used to implant 6 different types of breast implants. Mentor®, McGhan®, Polytech polyurethane®, Xtralane®, Motiva® and Natrelle Smooth® implants were employed; 20 rats received Motiva®, Xtralane® and Polytech polyurethane®, and 28 rats received Mentor®, McGhan® and Natrelle Smooth® implants. The capsules were removed five weeks after the implants placement. Further histological analysis compared capsule composition, collagen density and cellularity.

RESULTS

High texturization implants showed the highest levels of collagen and cellularity along the capsule. However, polyurethane implants capsules behaved differently regarding capsule composition, with the thickest capsules but fewer collagen and myofibroblasts than expected, despite being generally considered as a macrotexturized implant. Nanotextured implants and microtextured implants histological findings showed similar characteristics and less susceptibility to develop a capsular contracture compared with smooth implants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the relevance of the breast implant surface on the definitive capsules' development, since this is one of the most differentiated factors that determine the incidence of capsular contracture and probably other diseases like BIA-ALCL. A correlation of these findings with clinical cases will help to unify implant classification criteria based on their shell and their estimated incidence of capsule-associated pathologies. Up to this point, the establishment of additional groups is recommended as nanotexturized implants seem to behave differently to pure smooth surfaces and polyurethane implants present diverse features from macro- or microtextured implants.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .

Use of High-Resolution Ultrasound in Characterizing the Surface Topography of a Breast Implant

Background and Objectives: With the emergence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), it has become necessary to identify the implant shell type patients have received. Therefore, an immediate, reliable method for identifying a breast implant shell type is essential. Evidence-based research and applying a real-world technique that identifies the surface topographic information of the inserted breast implants, without surgery, has become of paramount importance for breast implant physicians. Methods and Materials: A review of the medical records of 1901 patients who received 3802 breast implants and subsequently received an ultrasound-assisted examination was performed. All patients received not only a breast cancer examination but also a high-resolution ultrasonography (HRUS) assisted examination of the device at a single center between 31 August 2017 and 31 December 2022. Results: Most patients had breast implants within 10 years (77.7%) of the examination. Of the 3802 implants screened, 2034 (53.5%) were identified with macro-textured shell topography in ultrasonography. A macrotextured shell type implant was used in 53.5% of cases and a smooth type in 42.7% of cases. Seventy-three (1.9%) breast implant shell types could not be identified due to ruptures. However, 250 breast implant shell types could be identified despite rupture cases (6.5%). Conclusions: HRUS was found to be a useful and reliable image modality for identifying various surface shell types of breast implants. The shell type information would be helpful to patients who lack information about their breast implants and are concerned about BIA-ALCL.

Pharmacological Approaches for the Prevention of Breast Implant Capsular Contracture

Capsular contracture is a common complication associated with breast implants following reconstructive or aesthetic surgery in which a tight or constricting scar tissue capsule forms around the implant, often distorting the breast shape and resulting in chronic pain. Capsulectomy (involving full removal of the capsule surrounding the implant) and capsulotomy (where the capsule is released and/or partly removed to create more space for the implant) are the most common surgical procedures used to treat capsular contracture. Various structural modifications of the implant device (including use of textured implants, submuscular placement of the implant, and the use of polyurethane-coated implants) and surgical strategies (including pre-operative skin washing and irrigation of the implant pocket with antibiotics) have been and/or are currently used to help reduce the incidence of capsular contracture. In this article, we review the pharmacological approaches-both commonly practiced in the clinic and experimental-reported in the scientific and clinical literature aimed at either preventing or treating capsular contracture, including (i) pre- and post-operative intravenous administration of drug substances, (ii) systemic (usually oral) administration of drugs before and after surgery, (iii) modification of the implant surface with grafted drug substances, (iv) irrigation of the implant or peri-implant tissue with drugs prior to implantation, and (v) incorporation of drugs into the implant shell or filler prior to surgery followed by drug release in situ after implantation.

HISTORY OF BREAST IMPLANTS: BACK TO THE FUTURE

Modern breast implants are a staple of plastic surgery, finding uses in esthetic and reconstructive procedures. Their history began in the 1960s, with the first generation of smooth devices with thick silicone elastomer, thick silicone gel, and Dacron patches on the back. They presented hard consistency, high capsular contracture rates and the patches increased the risk of rupture. In the same decade, polyurethane coating of implants was implemented. A second generation was introduced in the 1970s with a thinner shell, less viscous gel filler and no patches, but increased silicone bleed-through and rupture rates. The third generation, in the early 1980s, featured implants with a thicker multilayered elastomer shell reinforced with silica to reduce rupture risk and prevent silicone bleed-through. A fourth generation from the late 1980s combined thick outer elastomer shells, more cohesive gel filler, and implemented for the first-time outer shell texturing. In the early 1990s, the fifth generation of devices pioneered an anatomical shape with highly cohesive form-stable gel filler and a rough outer shell surface. Surface texturing was hampered by the discovery of Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and its link with textured devices. From the 2010s, we have the era of the sixth generation of implants, featuring innovations regarding the surface, with biomimetic surfaces, more resistant shells and variations in gel consistency. The road to innovation comprises setbacks such as the FDA moratorium in 1992, the PIP scandal, the Silimed CE mark temporary suspension and the FDA-requested voluntary recall of the Allergan BIOCELL implants.

Surface Texturization of Breast Implants Impacts Extracellular Matrix and Inflammatory Gene Expression in Asymptomatic Capsules

BACKGROUND

Texturing processes have been designed to improve biocompatibility and mechanical anchoring of breast implants. However, a high degree of texturing has been associated with severe abnormalities. In this study, the authors aimed to determine whether implant surface topography could also affect physiology of asymptomatic capsules.

METHODS

The authors collected topographic measurements from 17 different breast implant devices by interferometry and radiographic microtomography. Morphologic structures were analyzed statistically to obtain a robust breast implant surface classification. The authors obtained three topographic categories of textured implants (i.e., "peak and valleys," "open cavities," and "semiopened cavities") based on the cross-sectional aspects. The authors simultaneously collected 31 Baker grade I capsules, sorted them according to the new classification, established their molecular profile, and examined the tissue organization.

RESULTS

Each of the categories showed distinct expression patterns of genes associated with the extracellular matrix (Timp and Mmp members) and inflammatory response (Saa1, Tnsf11, and Il8), despite originating from healthy capsules. In addition, slight variations were observed in the organization of capsular tissues at the histologic level.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors combined a novel surface implant classification system and gene profiling analysis to show that implant surface topography is a bioactive cue that can trigger gene expression changes in surrounding tissue, even in Baker grade I capsules. The authors' new classification system avoids confusion regarding the word "texture," and could be transposed to implant ranges of every manufacturer. This new classification could prove useful in studies on potential links between specific texturizations and the incidence of certain breast-implant associated complications.