Silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease: an updated review of the epidemiologic evidence

Silicone implant surface microtopography modulates inflammation and tissue repair in capsular fibrosis

Excessive fibrous capsule formation around silicone mammary implants (SMI) involves immune reactions to silicone. Capsular fibrosis, a common SMI complication linked to host responses, worsens with specific implant topographies. Our study with 10 patients investigated intra- and inter-individually, reduced surface roughness effects on disease progression, wound responses, chronic inflammation, and capsular composition. The results illuminate the significant impact of surface roughness on acute inflammatory responses, fibrinogen accumulation, and the subsequent fibrotic cascade. The reduction of surface roughness to an average roughness of 4 μm emerges as a promising approach for mitigating detrimental immune reactions, promoting healthy wound healing, and curbing excessive fibrosis. The identified proteins adhering to rougher surfaces shed light on potential mediators of pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic processes, further emphasizing the need for meticulous consideration of surface design. The composition of the implant capsule and the discovery of intracapsular HSP60 expression highlight the intricate web of stress responses and immune activation that can impact long-term tissue outcomes.

Breast Implant Illness Through a Psychiatric Lens

Since their introduction in the 1960's, the safety of silicone breast implants has remained contentious due to concerns regarding carcinogenicity as well as a growing array of adverse psychiatric symptoms, which have now been termed 'Breast Implant Illness.' This article aims to explore the merits of a psychiatric approach to treating Breast Implant Illness by outlining how it is defined by psychiatric symptoms and categorized alongside other psychiatric illnesses. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the pathology of Breast Implant Illness is purely medical or psychiatric. However, the efficacy of the medical approach to treatment through a process called explantation, which involves removal of the implant and surrounding scar tissue, or capsule, is not strongly supported by existing data. A psychiatric approach to treatment, in conjunction with explanation, thus holds potential in remedying the novel and poorly understood Breast Implant Illness.Level of Evidence V 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 .

Free Silicone With Giant Cell Reaction Can Enhance on Breast MRI

Background

Breast augmentation with silicone implants is commonplace, and such implants have a risk of rupture which increases over time. Most implant ruptures are asymptomatic, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a recommended imaging modality for surveillance to detect these events. If a silicone leak enhances on MRI, it is currently categorized according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) as category 4, which results in a recommendation for biopsy even when free silicone leakage is the most likely diagnosis. In this article, we present a case series that illustrates this issue with the BI-RADS system and propose an algorithmic approach that may allow some patients to be placed into BI-RADS category 3 and avoid biopsy.

Methodology

Eight cases of silicone breast implant rupture were identified at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston over a five-year period. Two cases were excluded because MRI was not performed. The remaining six cases were evaluated for history and physical findings as well as mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI. All identified cases had been categorized as BI-RADS 4 and underwent biopsy.

Results

The six cases in this series exhibited pre-biopsy radiographic findings that were most consistent with silicone implant rupture. The ruptures were proven by biopsy, and no evidence of malignancy was identified in any of the patients.

Conclusions

Free silicone from breast implant rupture can present with enhancement on MRI. The two main categories of breast MRI enhancement, namely, mass and non-mass, include malignancies in their differential diagnoses and result in a BI-RADS category 4 designation. By correlating the findings with other imaging modalities, some of these patients can be classified as BI-RADS category 3 and biopsy can safely be avoided.

A population-based study of breast implant illness

Background

Despite evidence supporting the safety of breast implants, some women associate their implants with adverse health effects and have called this syndrome “breast implant illness.” We sought to characterize breast implant illness symptoms and to report how implant removal affects their symptoms.

Methods

An anonymous 20 question survey was administered to the Facebook group: “UTAH Breast Implant Illness” to characterize the symptoms these women attributed to their breast implants. Several questions allowed us to evaluate how implant removal affected women’s symptoms.

Results

Of the 182 respondents, 97% report that implants negatively affect their health and 95% identify these symptoms with breast implant illness. Ninety-six percent of respondents had implants placed for cosmetic reasons and 51% had silicone implants. The most common symptoms associated with breast implant illness are brain fog (95%), fatigue (92%), joint pain (80%), and hair loss (74%). Sixty percent of respondents learned about breast implant illness from family/friends and/or social media platforms (56%), 40% of respondents had their implants removed, and 97% report relief of their symptoms post-removal (23% complete, 74% partial). Following explantation, there was a significant improvement in all but one reported symptom. An association was found between the number of symptoms reported prior to explantation and the number of symptoms resolving following explantation.

Conclusions

Breast implant illness is a syndrome characterized by fatigue, decreased focus, hair loss, and joint pain after the placement of breast implants. Nearly all patients report improvement of symptoms after implant removal. Significant efforts should be made to better understand breast implant illness and its etiology.

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".

Classical Examples of the Concept of the ASIA Syndrome

Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) was first introduced in 2011 by Shoenfeld et al. and encompasses a cluster of related immune mediated diseases, which develop among genetically prone individuals as a result of adjuvant agent exposure. Since the recognition of ASIA syndrome, more than 4400 documented cases have been reported so far, illustrated by heterogeneous clinical manifestations and severity. In this review, five enigmatic conditions, including sarcoidosis, Sjögren's syndrome, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, silicone implant incompatibility syndrome (SIIS), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs), are defined as classical examples of ASIA. Certainly, these disorders have been described after an adjuvant stimulus (silicone implantation, drugs, infections, metals, vaccines, etc.) among genetically predisposed individuals (mainly the HLA-DRB1 and PTPN22 gene), which induce an hyperstimulation of the immune system resulting in the production of autoantibodies, eventually leading to the development of autoimmune diseases. Circulating autonomic autoantibodies in the sera of patients with silicone breast implants, as well as anatomopathological aspects of small fiber neuropathy in their skin biopsies have been recently described. To our knowledge, these novel insights serve as a common explanation to the non-specific clinical manifestations reported in patients with ASIA, leading to the redefinition of the ASIA syndrome diagnostic criteria.

Perception of Implants among Breast Reconstruction Patients in Montreal

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

In light of the recent surge of media coverage and social media influence regarding breast implants, it is essential to understand patients’ concerns and misconceptions so that we can better serve them.

Methods:

The authors designed a survey study for assessing the awareness and perception of patients toward breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and breast implant illness (BII). In total, 130 patients presenting to the senior author’s breast reconstruction clinic completed the survey. The survey assessed patients’ knowledge on and their perception of BIA-ALCL and BII.

Results:

“News article” and “Television” were most often selected as sources of information for BIA-ALCL (21% and 20%, respectively) and BII (20% and 25%, respectively). A total of 100 patients (77%) had previous knowledge of BIA-ALCL. Forty-seven percent (n = 47/100) responded that they were unsure of the fate of a person diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, and 25% (n = 25/100) were unaware of the association between BIA-ALCL and specific implant type. Patients who were unaware of BIA-ALCL prognosis reported being less likely to receive breast implants in the future (P = 0.012, χ² = 19.48). Eighty-nine patients (68%) had previous knowledge of BII. A total of 60 symptoms were mentioned by patients, with “Fatigue” (12%, n = 26) being cited the most often.

Conclusions:

The present survey highlights the importance for plastic surgeons to frequently discuss these entities with their patients. This should be done despite the obscurity of BII, in an effort to offer the best available evidence to our patients.

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.

Silicone breast implant rupture: a review

Silicone breast implants have been in use for nearly 6 decades. In this time they have undergone significant changes in design and use. They have been subject to intense scrutiny with regard to safety and efficacy, including an almost 10 years moratorium on their use. The current generations of implants have been followed via the manufacturer's Core studies in order to obtain long term data regarding safety and complications. The results of the more recent studies are compiled in this review. Rupture rates are initially very low and begin to increase after 6-8 years of implantation. Implant rupture may be detected by physical exam, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The majority of silicone implant ruptures are clinically undetectable. Symptomatic patients may present with capsular contracture, breast lumps or changes in breast shape. The most common cause of implant rupture is instrument damage during placement. Implant rupture may be confined to the peri-prosthetic capsule or may extravasate into the breast tissue. Patients with ruptured implants have been studied closely and the consensus of the literature states there are no health risks associated with implant rupture. Symptomatic patients with ruptured implants should be offered the choice of observation, or explantation and capsulectomy with or without replacement.

Gluteal Augmentation With Liquid Silicone of Unknown Purity Causes Granulomas in an Adult Female

Background:

A 39-year-old woman presented with a history of relapsing painful erythema and progressive fibrosis of the lower back. Upon questioning, the patient admitted to receiving liquid silicone (LS) injections for gluteal augmentation abroad and was diagnosed with silicone migration, granulomatous reaction, and fibrosis of the lower back.

Objective:

To review the history of LS injections for cosmetic soft tissue augmentation (STA) as well as its complications and potential treatments.

Methods:

The author reviewed articles that involved the use of LS for STA and summarized their findings.

Results:

The author summarizes the various treatments that have been described for inflammatory reactions following LS injection.

Conclusion:

The growth of cosmetic medical tourism and its inherent lack of after-care as well as patients’ ability to obtain restricted products at home raise the likelihood of encountering granulomatous or fibrotic reactions to fillers during consultations. Physicians should have a structured approach to these patients.

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).

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.

High-resolution ultrasound in the detection of silicone gel breast implant shell failure: background, in vitro studies, and early clinical results

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has historically been considered the "gold standard" for imaging silicone gel breast implants and is currently recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration for device surveillance. Recent studies, however, have questioned its accuracy as the best screening test for implant failure. In addition, the high cost of MRI is a significant deterrent to follow-up, especially among asymptomatic patients. Recent advancements in ultrasound technology have led to the development of high-resolution devices with the potential to accurately image breast implants and breast tissues.

OBJECTIVES

The authors evaluate the feasibility of portable, high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) for imaging of silicone gel breast implants and perform preliminary comparisons of HRUS to MRI in the assessment of both intact and failed implants in a clinical setting by both radiologists and plastic surgeons.

METHODS

Phase 1 was composed of in vitro and ex vivo scanning model assessments in a variety of implant models utilizing multiple HRUS hardware platforms (GE LOGIQ-9, LOGIQ-e, LOGIQ-i, and Venue-40 devices) and transducer heads (range, 8-16 MHz, mainly GE12ML transducer). In Phase 2, these technologies were applied clinically to provide imaging experience in three patients previously diagnosed with unilateral implant failure. Phase 3 was a preliminary prospective evaluation of HRUS of 29 implants in 15 consecutive patients for whom MRI and independent surgeon-performed and radiologist-performed HRUS scans were compared to subsequent surgical findings.

RESULTS

In Phase 1, all hardware models easily detected both intact and intentionally damaged shells in currently marketed fourth-generation responsive gel implants and in investigational, fifth-generation highly-cohesive gel devices. Although multiple transducers were able to detect shell failure, the 12-MHz head produced the best images at the normal clinical depth range. In Phase 2, confirmatory HRUS scans correctly identified the side of rupture and were consistent with MRI and surgical findings in all patients. In Phase 3, MRI, surgeon-performed HRUS, and radiologist-performed HRUS scans were all accurate in predicting implant shell integrity in 29 of 29 imaged breasts (100%) as confirmed at the time of surgery in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary results with a variety of base and transducer systems demonstrated that HRUS provides excellent visualization of current fourth- and fifth-generation silicone gel implants both in the in vitro and ex vivo scanning models. In vivo surgeon-performed HRUS accurately identified implant status and correlated with radiologist-performed HRUS, MRI, and surgical findings. An ongoing Phase 4 prospective study is under way to help define the sensitivity and specificity of HRUS technologies in the evaluation of current implant designs. However, the relative affordability, accessibility, availability, and dynamic real-time visualization provided by HRUS represent significant potential advantages of HRUS over MRI in both the screening and future diagnosis of breast implant shell failure.

[Aesthetic breast augmentation]

Breast augmentation has become one of the most popular procedures in aesthetic plastic surgery. In addition to the well-established procedure for breast enlargement with silicone implants, two further procedures have become established in recent years. The use of autologous fat for augmentation is not new but has become more important due to further developments in the sampling method and preparation of fatty tissue. Since 2006 a product based on hyaluronic acid has complemented the available options and offers an additional clinically tested method for breast enlargement. The correct method for each patient must be decided on an individual basis. This article gives a review of the individual procedures for breast enlargement and sketches the known advantages and disadvantages.

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.

Prospective cohort study of breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases

BACKGROUND

A 2000 meta-analysis indicated no overall association between breast implants and risk of connective-tissue diseases (CTDs). However, a large retrospective cohort study we previously conducted suggested, instead, a small increased risk of CTDs. Because of limitations inherent to the retrospective cohort study design, we sought clarification by conducting a prospective cohort study of the association of breast implants with CTD risk.

METHODS

Participants were 23 847 US women (mean age 56.6 years), 3950 of whom had breast implants and 19 897 did not. Women reported their breast implant status at baseline in 2001 and were followed for a median of 3.63 years. During follow-up, women reported incident CTD, confirmed using a CTD screening questionnaire (CSQ) and medical records.

RESULTS

In multivariate analyses, the rate ratios for self-reported CTD (113 vs 377 cases in the implanted and non-implanted group, respectively) were 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-2.00], for CSQ-confirmed CTD (77 vs 226 cases), 1.80 (1.37-2.38) and for medical record confirmed CTD (21 vs 74 cases), 1.39 (0.82-2.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this prospective cohort study represented a stronger design than the retrospective cohort study, the present data should still be viewed cautiously because of remaining methodological limitations, including the potential for differential self-reporting of CTD and CTD symptoms among women with and without breast implants, the difficulty of obtaining medical records for women reporting CTD and the low and possibly differential confirmation of self-reported disease against medical records. A reasonable conclusion is the lack of a large increase in CTD risk (e.g. ≥2-fold) associated with breast implants.

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.

Why are women predisposed to autoimmune rheumatic diseases?

The majority of autoimmune diseases predominate in females. In searching for an explanation for this female excess, most attention has focused on hormonal changes - both exogenous changes (for example, oral contraceptive pill) and fluctuations in endogenous hormone levels particularly related to menstruation and pregnancy history. Other reasons include genetic differences, both direct (influence of genes on sex chromosomes) and indirect (such as microchimerism), as well as gender differences in lifestyle factors. These will all be reviewed, focusing on the major autoimmune connective tissue disorders: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma.

Altered systemic serologic parameters in patients with silicone mammary implants

BACKGROUND

The most common local complication in patients with silicone mammary implants (SMIs) is excessive peri-SMI connective tissue capsule formation and its subsequent contracture. However, considerable controversy remains as to whether these implants also cause systemic side effects. The present study was undertaken to identify possible alterations of serological markers in SMI patients that may herald systemic side effects.

METHODS

We investigated several systemic serological parameters in 143 individuals, 93 of whom had received SMIs and 50 were controls. The patients were grouped according to the severity of capsular contracture (Baker scores I-IV) and the duration of SMI implants (less than 1 year, between 1 and 5 years, more than 5 years). We also included control groups (female blood donors, nurses with possible professional silicone exposure). Patients with breast cancer and subsequent SMI-reconstruction were excluded from the study since they are generally considered immunocompromised. The following parameters were determined: anti-neutrophil cytoplasmatic autoantibodies (cANCA), anti-nuclear autoantibodies (ANA), anti-cardiolipin antibodies (CL-Ab), rheumatoid factor (RF), complement components (C3, C4), circulating immune complexes (CIC), procollagen III (a marker of active fibrosis), anti-polymer antibodies (APA) and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1).

RESULTS

The following parameters were increased in the sera of SMI patients: CIC, procollagen III, APA, sICAM-1.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a set of parameters in serum that correlate with fibrosis development and the duration of the implants in otherwise healthy SMI carriers. Future studies will clarify whether these serological abnormalities will be useful in predicting clinical disease, and also further assess the sensitivity and specificity of these parameters. Our present recommendation as a result of this study is that SMI patients with persistent abnormal serological parameters should be monitored closely by a clinical team that includes rheumatologists.

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.

Adverse health outcomes in offspring of mothers with cosmetic breast implants: a review

BACKGROUND

To assess whether maternal cosmetic breast implants are associated with adverse health outcomes among offspring, the authors examined published findings of epidemiologic studies that addressed this hypothesis.

METHODS

Four epidemiologic studies, all from Scandinavia, were identified. Women with breast implants were identified from existing public and private registers of patients, and their offspring were traced through nationwide population and birth registers. The studies included a total of 11,445 women with breast implants and 3248 children born after the mothers' implantation procedures. Comparison was made with children born to mothers who had undergone other cosmetic surgery or general population controls. Outcomes under study were congenital malformations, hospitalization for esophageal and rheumatic disorders, and perinatal mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, the studied outcomes were similar between children born to mothers with breast implants and children of controls, and between children born before and after maternal breast implantation. In the Danish studies, significantly elevated rates of esophageal disorders were observed for children born before (observed-to-expected ratio, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.8) but not after (observed-to-expected ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 2.9) the mother's breast implant surgery. Similar excesses were observed among control children born before and after maternal breast reduction. In the Swedish and Finnish studies, all risk estimates for malformations and perinatal health were close to unity.

CONCLUSION

Rates of esophageal and rheumatic disorders, congenital malformations, and perinatal mortality and hospitalization were comparable between children born to mothers with breast implants and children born to mothers who had undergone other cosmetic surgery.

The Mentor Core Study on Silicone MemoryGel Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

In 2005, convincing safety and efficacy data were presented, resulting in the approval of Mentor MemoryGel Implants, with conditions.

METHODS

The 1007 women enrolled in the 10-year, multicenter, Mentor Core MemoryGel Study were distributed into four cohorts: 551 primary augmentation patients, 146 revision-augmentation patients, 251 primary reconstruction patients, and 59 revision-reconstruction patients. Preoperatively and postoperatively, study instruments and physical examinations were administered to assess medical history, patient satisfaction, quality of life and body image, connective tissue disease diagnosis, rheumatology symptoms, and chest size change to determine the efficacy of surgery.

RESULTS

Safety assessments included complication rates and rates of reoperation. Results at 3 years were reported at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel. Results indicate that the risk of any complication (including reoperation) at some point through 3 years after implant surgery is 36.6 percent for primary patients, 50.1 percent for revision-augmentation patients, 49.4 percent for primary reconstruction patients, and 47.5 percent for revision-reconstruction patients. Suspected rupture rates reported from the magnetic resonance imaging cohort were 0.5 percent for primary augmentation, 7.7 percent for revision-augmentation, 0.9 percent for primary reconstruction, and 0 percent for revision-reconstruction. Only two implants, in a single patient, were found surgically to be ruptured. There were 4.7 percent primary and 12.3 percent revision-augmentation patients who had their implants removed, with patient choice and severe capsular contracture being the most common reasons.

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrated safety and efficacy of the devices, but also indicate that a focus must be placed on better education and technique to improve clinical outcomes in the future.

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

PURPOSE

Numerous epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that breast implants are not associated with connective tissue diseases (CTDs). However, many CTDs are rare, and continued follow-up of women with breast implants is warranted.

METHODS

We extended by 5 years the follow-up of our earlier population-based cohort study of Danish women with cosmetic breast implants (n = 2761) and comparison groups of women with other types of cosmetic surgery (n = 8807). All women were followed from January 1977 through December 2001. Hospitalization and outpatient data for CTD and ill-defined and other rheumatic conditions in the implant and comparison groups were compared with those in the general Danish population. Additionally, CTDs and fibromyalgia were confirmed through medical chart review, and direct comparisons of the breast implant cohort with the comparison cohort were performed.

RESULTS

When compared with general population rates, CTDs were not statistically significantly elevated in either the implant or the comparison cohorts. However, unspecified rheumatism was similarly increased in the implant (standardized rate ratio = 1.9; 95% confidence interval = 1.6 to 2.2) and comparison (standardized rate ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval = 1.4 to 1.7) cohorts. In analyses of diagnoses validated by chart review, women with cosmetic breast implants compared with those having other types of plastic surgery or consultation for plastic surgery had no statistically significant excess for any specific confirmed CTD or combined CTDs (hazard ratio = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.9). In addition, there was no relation between breast implants and confirmed fibromyalgia (hazard ratio = 1.2; 95% CI = 0.6 to 2.1).

CONCLUSIONS

This extension of our earlier cohort study further supports the consensus of epidemiologic research that breast implants are unrelated to the development of CTD.

Style 410 Cohesive Silicone Breast Implants: Safety and Effectiveness at 5 to 9 Years after Implantation

BACKGROUND

Inamed introduced a fourth-generation implant, the Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implant, in 1993. To date, little has been published on this implant despite its widespread use in Europe, and no data are available on its long-term rupture rate.

METHODS

Women implanted with Style 410 implants between 1995 and 1999 at Akademikliniken Hospital in Stockholm were eligible to participate in the study. One hundred forty-four of 302 potential subjects received a physical examination, underwent magnetic resonance imaging screening for silent rupture, and completed a quality-of-life survey. The majority of subjects were Caucasian (96 percent), with a median age of 39 years. The study population consisted of subjects with cosmetic augmentation (86 percent) or revision of previous breast implantation (14 percent). Median time elapsed between physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging was 2 days.

RESULTS

The 144 subjects provided 286 implants for magnetic resonance imaging assessment, with a median implantation time of 6 years (range, 5 to 9 years). Overall, 99.0 percent of implants showed no evidence of rupture, 0.3 percent showed evidence of rupture, and 0.7 percent were indeterminate. The most common complication noted at physical examination was capsular contracture (5.6 percent). All other complications occurred in less than 3 percent of subjects. Quality-of-life results found an improvement in overall sense of well-being for 87 percent of subjects. Most compelling is that 97 percent stated an overall feeling that their breast implantation had been advantageous.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' findings support the long-term safety and effectiveness of Inamed Style 410 cohesive breast implants and demonstrate a low prevalence of rupture.

Issues related to choice of breast reconstruction in early-stage breast cancer

Reconstructive surgeons focus their efforts on refining and developing techniques that optimize oncologic outcome and recreate the most natural breast mound possible. The introduction of perforator flaps offers the potential for faster and more complete recovery, while increasing technical complexity and the risks associated with microsurgical reconstruction. Despite appealing long-lasting results, autologous reconstruction is not the ideal reconstructive choice for every patient. Tissue/expander reconstruction can produce a satisfactory aesthetic outcome and is the reconstruction of choice for most women undergoing breast reconstruction. Immediate autologous reconstruction at the time of mastectomy best resembles the lost breast and favorably withstands radiation, compared with other reconstructive methods. However, the best method for integrating reconstruction and radiation is being actively debated. Placing a tissue expander at the time of mastectomy allows a skin-sparing approach and gives the patient a chance to see how she will feel with an implant. This approach avoids radiation damage to tissue reconstruction flaps, saving them for use later if necessary. This approach, using a tissue expander as a first step, is growing in popularity.