Misplaced Pages

Breast implant: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:31, 28 November 2006 editDroliver (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,412 edits reverted, take it to the discussion page← Previous edit Revision as of 02:59, 29 November 2006 edit undoJance (talk | contribs)3,137 edits Revert to Einstein145 version. Oliver is the one who needs to take it to the talk page, since two other editors have since changed it.Next edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


==Patient Characteristics== ==Patient Characteristics==
Patients seeking breast augmentation are usually younger, healthier, and from higher socio-economic status than the population at large.<ref name="Brinton2000">{{cite journal | author = Brinton L, Brown S, Colton T, Burich M, Lubin J | title = Characteristics of a population of women with breast implants compared with women seeking other types of plastic surgery. | journal = Plast Reconstr Surg | volume = 105 | issue = 3 | pages = 919-27; discussion 928-9 | year = 2000 | id = PMID 10724251}}</ref> Many of these patients have greater distress about their appearance in a variety of situations, and have endured more frequent teasing about their appearance. Studies have identified a pattern (shared by many cosmetic surgery procedures) that suggest women who undergo breast implantation are slightly more likely to have undergone psychotherapy, have low levels of self-esteem, and have higher prevalences of depression, suicide attempts and mental illness as compared to the general population.<ref name="Sarwer2003">{{cite journal | author=Sarwer DB,, et al. | title=Body image concerns of breast augmentation patients. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2003 | issue=July| pages=83-90| id=PMID 12832880 }}</ref> </p> Patients seeking breast augmentation are usually younger, healthier, and from higher socio-economic status than the population at large.<ref name="Brinton2000">{{cite journal | author = Brinton L, Brown S, Colton T, Burich M, Lubin J | title = Characteristics of a population of women with breast implants compared with women seeking other types of plastic surgery. | journal = Plast Reconstr Surg | volume = 105 | issue = 3 | pages = 919-27; discussion 928-9 | year = 2000 | id = PMID 10724251}}</ref> Studies suggest that women who undergo breast implantation do not differ in self-esteem compared to other women, but are less satisfied with their breast size, and report a larger ideal breast size, with almost all choosing a cup size of C or D.<ref name="Sarwer2003">{{cite journal | author=Sarwer DB,, et al. | title=Body image concerns of breast augmentation patients. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2003 | issue=July| pages=83-90| id=PMID 12832880 }}</ref> This research indicates that desiring breast augmentation is not a function solely of small breast size but may also result from an ideal that is larger than that reported by the general population. <p>


==Benefits==
Post-operative surveys on mental health and quality of life issues have shown improvement on a number of dimensions including: physical health, physical appearance, social life and self confidence.<ref name="Young1994">{{cite journal | author=Young VL, et al. | title=The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=1994 | issue=Dec| pages=958-69| id=PMID 7972484
}}</ref><ref name="chahraoui2006">{{cite journal | author=Chahraoui K,, et al. | title=Aesthetic surgery and quality of life before and four months postoperatively | journal=J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants | year=2006 | pages=207-210 | id=PMID 16181718 }}</ref><ref name="Cash2002">{{cite journal | author=Cash TF, et al. | title=Women's psychosocial outcomes of breast augmentation with silicone gel-filled implants: a 2-year prospective study. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2002 | issue=May| pages=2112-21| id=PMID 11994621 }}</ref> The large majority of patients reports being satisfied long-term with their implants even when they have required reopertion for complications or aesthetic reasons.<ref name="HandelN">{{cite journal | author=HandelN, et al. | title=A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2006 | issue=Mar| pages=757-67| id=PMID 16525261 }}</ref> </p>


<ref name="Young1994">{{cite journal | author=Young VL, et al. | title=The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=1994 | issue=Dec| pages=958-69| id=PMID 7972484 A few post-operative surveys on mental health and quality of life issues have indicated improvement in physical health, physical appearance, social life and self confidence.<ref name="Young1994">{{cite journal | author=Young VL, et al. | title=The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=1994 | issue=Dec| pages=958-69| id=PMID 7972484}}</ref><ref name="Cash2002">{{cite journal | author=Cash TF, et al. | title=Women's psychosocial outcomes of breast augmentation with silicone gel-filled implants: a 2-year prospective study. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2002 | issue=May| pages=2112-21| id=PMID 11994621 }}</ref> However, these studies measure short-term outcomes and have other methodological shortcomings. <ref name="chahraoui2006">{{cite journal | author=Chahraoui K,, et al. | title=Aesthetic surgery and quality of life before and four months postoperatively | journal=J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants | year=2006 | pages=207-210 | id=PMID 16181718 }}</ref> <p>

}}</ref> </p>
When the FDA compared scores on established self-esteem and quality of life measures before and two years after breast augmentation, they found either no improvement or a statistically significant decrease on most measures for Inamed patients and Mentor patients <p>

In addition, five studies have found statistically significant doubling in suicides among women with breast augmenation compared with similar women in the general population or with other plastic surgery patients <ref name=Brinton2006>{{cite journal | author=Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Murray MC, Colton T, Hoover RN | title=Mortality rates among augmentation mammoplasty patients: an update | journal=Epidemiology | year=2006 | pages=162-9 | volume=17 | issue=2 | id=PMID 16477256}}</ref> and a 2006 study conducted among 24,600 women by the Universite Laval Faculty of Medicine, the Canadian Public Health Agency and Cancer Care Ontario found that the suicide rate among women with breast implants is 73% higher than in the general population.


==Types of implants== ==Types of implants==
Line 30: Line 33:
====Silicone implant generations==== ====Silicone implant generations====
Silicone implants are generally described in terms of five generations which segregates common characteristics of manufacturing techniques. Silicone implants are generally described in terms of five generations which segregates common characteristics of manufacturing techniques.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">'''Table I: Generations of Silicone Gel Filled Breast Implants'''</p>
<!--mstheme--></font><table class="MsoTableContemporary" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" id="table1"><tr>
<!--mstheme--></font><table class="MsoTableContemporary" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" id="table1">
<tr>
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">'''Implant Generation'''<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">'''Production Period'''<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">'''Characteristics'''<!--mstheme--></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1st Generation<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1960s<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Thick Shell (0.25mm
average)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Thick, Viscous Gel</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Teardrop shape</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Dacron Patch<!--mstheme--></font></td> </tr>
<tr>
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">2nd Generation<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1970s<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Thin Shell (0.13mm
average)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Less Viscous Gel</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Dacron Patch discontinued</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Double Lumen Implants Introduced</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Polyurethane Implants Introduced<!--mstheme--></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Round shape</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">3rd Generation<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1980s - 1992<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Thick,
Barrier Coat Shells<!--mstheme--></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Round shape</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 48.15pt">
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; height: 48.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">4<sup>th</sup> Generation<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; height: 48.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1992-present<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; height: 48.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: 2.25pt solid white; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #CCCCCC"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Stricter manufacturing
standards; Refined 3<sup>rd</sup> Generation devices<!--mstheme--></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">More Cohesive Gel</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Textured Surfaces</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Round & Anatomic Shapes</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="204" valign="top" style="width: 153.15pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: medium none; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">5th Generation<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="170" valign="top" style="width: 127.6pt; border-left: medium none; border-right: 2.25pt solid white; border-top: medium none; border-bottom: medium none; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">1993-present<!--mstheme--></font></td>
<td width="216" valign="top" style="width: 162.05pt; border: medium none; padding-left: 5.4pt; padding-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; background: #F2F2F2"><!--mstheme--><font face="Arial, Helvetica">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Highly Cohesive Gel
<!--mstheme--></font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%">Form-stable Anatomic Design</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

* '''First generation''' * '''First generation'''
The Cronin-Gerow implants were made of a silicone rubber envelope (or sac), filled with a thick, viscous silicone gel with a Dacron patch on the posterior shell.<ref>Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series 1963;66:41.</ref> They were firm and had a "teardrop" anatomic shape. The Cronin-Gerow implants were made of a silicone rubber envelope (or sac), filled with a thick, viscous silicone gel with a Dacron patch on the posterior shell.<ref>Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series 1963;66:41.</ref> They were firm and had a "teardrop" anatomic shape.
* '''Second generation''' * '''Second generation'''
In response to surgeons' requests for softer and more lifelike implants, breast implants were redesigned in the 1970s with thinner gel and thinner shells. These implants had a greater tendency to rupture and leak, or "bleed" silicone through the porous shell, and complications such as capsular contracture were also quite common. It was predominantly implants of this generation that were involved in the class action-lawsuits against Dow-Corning in the early 1990s. Breast implants were redesigned in the 1970s with thinner gel and thinner shells, to make the implants softer and insertion easier. These implants had a greater tendency to rupture and leak, or "bleed" silicone through the porous shell, and complications such as capsular contracture were also quite common. It was predominantly implants of this generation that were involved in the class action-lawsuits against Dow-Corning in the early 1990s.
Another development in the ] was a '''''polyurethane foam coating''''' on the implant shell which was effective in diminishing capsular contracture by causing an inflammatory reaction that discouraged formation of fibrous tissue around the capsule. These implants were later discontinued due to concern of potential carcinogenic breakdown products from the polyurethane.<!-- --><ref name="Luu11998">{{cite journal | author=Luu HM, Hutter JC, Bushar HF | title=A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for 2,4-toluenediamine leached from polyurethane foam-covered breast implants | journal=Environ Health Perspect | year=1998 | pages=393-400 | volume=106 | issue=7 | id=PMID 9637796 }}</ref> A review of the risk for cancer from TDA by the FDA later concluded that the risk was so small so as not to justify removal of the devices. Polyurethane implants are still used in Europe and South America, but no manufacturer has sought FDA approval for sale in the United States.<!-- --><ref name=”Hester2001”>{{cite journal | author=Hester TR Jr, Tebbetts JB, Maxwell GP | title=The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: facts and fiction (II): a look back and a "peek" ahead | journal=Clin Plast Surg | year=2001 | pages=579-86 | volume=28 | issue=3 | id=PMID 11471963}}</ref> Another development in the late ] and ] was a '''''polyurethane foam coating''''' on the implant shell which was effective in diminishing capsular contracture by causing an inflammatory reaction that discouraged formation of fibrous tissue around the capsule. The polyurethane was not medical grade, however, and the impants were difficult to surgically remove. They were later discontinued when the polyurethane was found to break down into TDA in the breast and breast milk; TDA is a known animal carcinogen.<!-- --><ref name="Luu11998">{{cite journal | author=Luu HM, Hutter JC, Bushar HF | title=A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for 2,4-toluenediamine leached from polyurethane foam-covered breast implants | journal=Environ Health Perspect | year=1998 | pages=393-400 | volume=106 | issue=7 | id=PMID 9637796 }}</ref> Polyurethane implants are still used in Europe and South America, but no manufacturer has sought FDA approval for sale in the United States.<!-- --><ref name=”Hester2001”>{{cite journal | author=Hester TR Jr, Tebbetts JB, Maxwell GP | title=The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: facts and fiction (II): a look back and a "peek" ahead | journal=Clin Plast Surg | year=2001 | pages=579-86 | volume=28 | issue=3 | id=PMID 11471963}}</ref>
Second-generation implants also included various '''"double lumen" designs'''. These implants were essentially a silicone implant inside a saline implant. The double lumen was an attempt to provide the cosmetic benefits of gel in the inside lumen, while the outside lumen contained saline and its volume could be adjusted after placement. The failure rate of these implants is higher than for single lumen implants due to their more complex design. The contemporary versions of these devices ("Becker Implants") are used primarily for breast reconstruction. Second-generation implants also included various '''"double lumen" designs'''. These implants were essentially a silicone implant inside a saline implant. The double lumen was an attempt to provide the cosmetic benefits of gel in the inside lumen, while the outside lumen contained saline and its volume could be adjusted after placement. The failure rate of these implants is higher than for single lumen implants due to their more complex design. The contemporary versions of these devices ("Becker Implants") are used primarily for breast reconstruction.
* '''Third & Fourth generation''' * '''Third & Fourth generation'''
] ]
Third & fourth generation implants, represented sequential advances in manufacturing principles and were elastomer-coated to decrease gel bleed, and a filled with thicker, more cohesive gel. These implants are sold under restricted conditions in the U.S. and Canada, and are widely used in other countries. The increased cohesion of the gel filler reduces leakage of the gel compared to earlier devices. A variety of both round and tapered anatomic shapes are available. Anatomic shaped implants are uniformly textured to reduce rotation, while round devices are available in smooth or textured surfaces. ] Third & fourth generation implants, represented sequential advances in manufacturing principles and were elastomer-coated to decrease gel bleed, and a filled with thicker, more cohesive gel. These implants are sold under restricted conditions in the U.S. and Canada, and are widely used in other countries. The increased cohesion of the gel filler reduces leakage of the gel compared to earlier devices. A variety of both round and tapered anatomic shapes are available. Anatomic shaped implants are uniformly textured to reduce rotation, while round devices are available in smooth or textured surfaces. <!-- Unsourced image removed: ] -->
* '''Fifth generation''' * '''Fifth generation'''
Evaluation of "]" or high-cohesive, form-stable implants is in preliminary stages in the United States but enjoys wide use in the rest of the world. It is believed that the high degree of gel cohesion in these implants is likely to eliminate or significantly reduce the possibility of silicone migration. Early reports of these devices have shown excellent safety and efficacy. <!-- --><ref name="Brown2005">{{cite journal | author=Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA | title=Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg | year=2005 | pages=768-79; discussion 780-1 | volume=116 | issue=3 | id=PMID 16141814}}</ref><!-- --><ref name="Fruhstorfer2004">{{cite journal | author=Fruhstorfer BH, Hodgson EL, Malata CM | title=Early experience with an anatomical soft cohesive silicone gel prosthesis in cosmetic and reconstructive breast implant surgery | journal=Ann Plast Surg | year=2004 | pages=536-42 | volume=53 | issue=6 | id=PMID 15602249}}</ref><!-- --><ref name="Heden2001">{{cite journal | author=Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M | title=Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world's largest current experience | journal=Clin Plast Surg | year=2001 | pages=531-52 | volume=28 | issue=3 | id=PMID 11471959}}</ref> Evaluation of "]" or high-cohesive, form-stable implants is in preliminary stages in the United States but are widely used in the rest of the world. Implant manufacturers claim that the high degree of gel cohesion in these implants is likely to eliminate or significantly reduce the possibility of silicone migration. However, no long-term peer-reviewed studies are available to determine if these claims are accurate. <!-- --><ref name="Brown2005">{{cite journal | author=Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA | title=Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg | year=2005 | pages=768-79; discussion 780-1 | volume=116 | issue=3 | id=PMID 16141814}}</ref><!-- --><ref name="Fruhstorfer2004">{{cite journal | author=Fruhstorfer BH, Hodgson EL, Malata CM | title=Early experience with an anatomical soft cohesive silicone gel prosthesis in cosmetic and reconstructive breast implant surgery | journal=Ann Plast Surg | year=2004 | pages=536-42 | volume=53 | issue=6 | id=PMID 15602249}}</ref><!-- --><ref name="Heden2001">{{cite journal | author=Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M | title=Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world's largest current experience | journal=Clin Plast Surg | year=2001 | pages=531-52 | volume=28 | issue=3 | id=PMID 11471959}}</ref>


====Silicone Implant Crisis of early 1990s==== ====Silicone Implant Controversy====
Although silicone gel-filled breast implants were introduced into the US market decades prior, the FDA did not have a statutory basis to regulate most medical devices until the late 1970s. After a number of anecdotal reports surfaced alleging problems in patients with gel implants, the FDA asked for and reviewed hastily assembled data submitted by several implant manufacturers. They later concluded that the amount of data presented was not sufficient to prove safety but did not necessarily reflect any evidence of an associated risk between the devices and disease. In 1992, amid intense political pressure and media publicity, the FDA reclassified the devices as experimental and restricted silicone gel-filled breast implants to clinical trials, primarily for women needing reconstruction after mastectomy or breast deformity, or for women with implants that need to be replaced. Prior to the FDA’s restrictions on silicone gel-filled implants in 1992, approximately 97% of women who underwent breast implant surgery chose to have silicone gel-filled implants. In November 2006, the FDA reapproved silicone implants for cosmetic and reconstructive indications. Although silicone gel-filled breast implants were introduced into the US market in the 1960s, the FDA did not have a statutory basis to regulate most medical devices until 1976. At that time, the U.S. FDA was required by law to examine the safety and effectiveness of all medical devices, including breast implants. Any devices which raised concerns among FDA scientists were classified as requiring evidence of safety and efficacy. In the early 1990's, the FDA notified implant manufacturers that studies would be required, and in 1992 the FDA concluded that the data submitted were not sufficient to prove safety.


As a result of the companies' failure to prove safety and obtain FDA approval, implants made from silicone gel were restricted in the U.S. in 1992. All women obtaining breast implants in the U.S. were required to participate in clinical trials, primarily for women needing reconstruction after mastectomy or breast deformity, or for women with implants that need to be replaced. Approximately one million women had implants at the time that these restrictions were instituted, and multi-million dollar jury awards and subsequent litigation led manufacturers to agree to a settlement of US$4.25 billion.
In ], a similar series of events occurred where silicone gel-filled prostheses were restricted by Health Canada in ] prior to a limited reintroduction in ]. A 2005 Canadian panel of experts reviewed the data and research again, and found no compelling reason to restrict access to the devices<!-- --><ref name="HC-Implants">{{cite web | author= Health Canada | title=It's Your Health: Breast Implants | url=http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/alt_formats/cmcd-dcmc/pdf/implants_e.pdf | publisher=Health Canada}}</ref>, and in October 2006, Health Canada removed the restrictions on the use of these implants.


In November 2006, the FDA approved silicone implants from two manufacturers under several conditions. According to the FDA website, the approval is only for women ages 22 and older, and is contingent on each of the companies conducting 10-year studies of the complications and health risks of breast implants on at least 40,000 women.
No other countries in the world have any significant restrictions on access to silicone breast implants.


In ], a similar series of events occurred where silicone gel-filled prostheses were restricted by Health Canada in ] prior to a limited reintroduction in ]. In October 2006, Health Canada removed the restrictions on the use of these implants.
== Implant Placement Techniques ==
===Incision Types===
Breast implants for augmentation may be placed via various types of incisions:
* '''Inframammary''' - an incision is placed below the breast in the infra-mammary fold (IMF). This incision is the most commona approach and affords maximum access for disection and placement of an implant. It is often the preferred technique for silicone gel implants due to the longer incisions required.
* '''Periareolar''' - an incision is placed along the areolar border. This incision provides an optimal approach when adjustments to the IMF position or mastopexy (breast lift) procedures are planned. The incision is generally placed around the inferior half, or the medial half of the areola's circumference. Larger silicone gel implants are difficult to place via this incision.
* '''Transaxillary''' - an incision is placed in the armpit and the dissection tunnels medially. This approach allows implants to be placed with no visible scars on the breast. Transaxillary procedures can be performed with or without an endoscope (tiny lighted camera).
* '''Transumbilical (TUBA)''' - a less common technique where an incision is placed in the navel and dissection tunnels superiorly. This approach enables implants to be placed with no visible scars on the breast, but makes appropriate disection and implant placement more difficult. Transumbilical procedures may be performed bluntly or with an endoscope (tiny lighted camera) to assist dissection. This technique is not appropriate for placing silicone gel implants due to potential damage of the implant shell during blunt insertion.
* '''Transabdominoplasty (TABA)''' - procedure similar to TUBA, where the implants are tunneled up from the abdomen into bluntly dissected pockets while a patient is simultaneously undergoing an abdominoplasty procedure.

===Implant Pocket Placement===
The placement of implants is described in relation to the pectoralis major muscle.
* '''Subglandular'''- implant between the breast tissue and the pectoralis muscle. This position closely resembles the plane of normal breast tissue and is felt by many to achieve the most aesthetic results. The subglandular position in patients with thin soft-tissue coverage is most likely to show ripples or wrinkles of the underlying implant. Capsular contracture rates are also slightly higher with this approach
* '''Subfascial'''- the implant is placed in the subglandular position, but underneath the fascia of the pectoralis muscle. The benefits of this technique are debated, but proponents believe the thin vascularized fascia may help with coverage and sustaining positioning of the implant.
* '''Subpectoral''' ("dual plane")- the implant is placed underneath the pectoralis major muscle after releasing the inferior muscular attachments. As a result, the implant is partially beneath the pectoralis in the upper pole, while the lower half of the implant is in the subglandular plane. This is the most common technique in North America and achieves maximal upper implant coverage while allowing expansion of the lower pole. Capsular contracture rates have been lower after widespread adoption of this technique.
* '''Submuscular'''- the implant is placed below the pectoralis without release of the inferior origin of the muscle. Total muscular coverage may be achieved by releasing the lateral chest wall muscles (seratus and/or pectoralis minor) and sewn to the pectoralis major. This technique is most commonly used for maximal coverage of implants used in breast reconstruction.


==Complications== ==Complications==
Local complications that can occur with breast implants include post-operative bleeding (]), fluid collections (]), surgical site infection, breast pain, alterations in nipple sensation, interference with breast feeding, visible wrinkling, asymmetric appearance, wound dehiscence (with potential implant exposure), thinning of the breast tissue, and synmastia (disruption of the natural plane between breasts). Local complications that can occur with breast implants include ], rupture, post-operative bleeding (]), fluid collections (]), surgical site infection, breast pain, alterations in nipple sensation, interference with breast feeding, visible wrinkling, asymmetric appearance, wound dehiscence (with potential implant exposure), thinning of the breast tissue, and synmastia (disruption of the natural plane between breasts).<p>

The most common reasons cited for reoperation after breast augmentation are ] and disatification with size or appearance.


===Rupture=== ===Rupture===
]<p>]
====Saline Implant Rupture====
When saline breast implants break, they often deflate quickly and can be easily removed. Prospective studies of saline-filled breast implants approved by FDA in May 2000 showed rupture/deflation rates of 3-5% at 3 years and 7-10% at 5 years for augmentation patients. Breast implants do not last a lifetime. When saline breast implants break, they often deflate quickly and can be easily removed. Prospective studies of saline-filled breast implants approved by FDA in May 2000 showed rupture/deflation rates of 3-5% at 3 years and 7-10% at 5 years for augmentation patients.<p>


The recent FDA approval of silicone implants stipulates that the manufacturers inform women that the implants "are not lifetime devices" and that most recipients will need at least one additional surgery to replace or remove their implants. Rupture is one reason for reoperation. Among the causes of rupture are damage during implantation or other procedures, trauma to the chest, and the pressure of mammograms.
====Silicone Implant Rupture====

The age and design of the implant are the most important factors in rupture, but estimating ruptures rates of contemporary devices has been difficult, as most previous reports<!-- --><ref name="Brown2000"> {{cite journal | author=Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA, Soo MS, Pennello G | title=Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama | journal=AJR Am J Roentgenol | year=2000 | pages=1057-64 | volume=175 | issue=4 | id=PMID 11000165}}</ref> mixed heterogeneous groups of devices in non-randomized populations. Data from the MRI cohorts of the US-FDA proscribed "core" studies of contemporary implants has demonstrated low rupture rates within the first 3-4 years after implantation and will continue to be followed longitudinally.] The only available literature with longer term available MRI data on single lumen 3rd/4th generation silicone implants comes from Europe and has reported between 6% to 15% device failure rates on follow-up approaching a decade.<!-- --><ref name="Holmich2003"> {{cite journal | author=Holmich LR, et al | title=Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture.| journal=Arch Surg. | year=2003 | pages=801-6| volume=138 | issue=7 | id=PMID 12860765}}</ref> <!-- --><ref name="Heden2006"> {{cite journal | author=Heden P, et al | title=Prevalence of rupture in inamed silicone breast implants.| journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=303-8| volume=118 | issue=2 | id=PMID 16874191}}</ref>. An additional unpublished retrospective series from Collis and Sharpe reporting a 10% failure rate at a decade in breast augmentation patients was presented in 2005 FDA hearings.<!-- --><ref name="Collis2005"> {{cite web | www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/ 2005-4101b1_Mentor-Briefing%20doc-supplement.DOC}}</ref>Evaluation of highly-cohesive (5th generation) gel implants suggests even better performance, with a rupture rate on MRI-screened patients reported at 0.3% at six years.<!-- --><ref name="Heden"> {{cite journal | author=Heden P, et al | title=Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation.| journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=1281-7| volume=118 | issue=6 | id=PMID 17051096}}</ref></p>
Some studies have suggested that clinical exams alone are inadequate to rule out suspected rupture.<!-- --><ref name="Holmich2005">{{cite journal | author=Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K, Breiting VB, Jorgensen A, Krag C, McLaughlin JK | title= The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging | journal=Ann Plast Surg | year=2005 | pages=583-9 | volume=54 | issue=6 | id=PMID 15900139}}</ref> Since the research indicates that most ruptures of silicone gel implants are "silent," with no symptoms, the FDA has endorsed MRIs as the gold standard for evaluating potential rupture. The age and design of the implant are also important factors in rupture, but estimating ruptures rates of contemporary devices has been difficult, because implant designs tend to change just as implants are old enough to study long-term. As a result, most studies <!-- --><ref name="Brown2000"> {{cite journal | author=Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA, Soo MS, Pennello G | title=Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama | journal=AJR Am J Roentgenol | year=2000 | pages=1057-64 | volume=175 | issue=4 | id=PMID 11000165}}</ref> include women with a range of implants, some of which are no longer sold. <p>

When silicone implants break they rarely deflate, and the silicone from the implant can leak out into the intracapsular space around the implant. An intracapsular rupture can progress to outside of the capsule (extracapsular rupture), and when recognized, both conditions are generally agreed to indicate the need for removal of the implant. Extracapsular silicone has the potential to migrate, but most clinical complications have appeared to be limited to the breast and axillae <!-- --><ref name="Holmich2004">{{cite journal| author=Holmich LR , et. al |title= Untreated silicone breast implant rupture | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2004|pages=204-14|volume=114 | issue=1 |id= PMID 15220594 }}</ref> in the form of ] (inflammatory nodules) and ]ry ] <!-- --><ref name="Katzin 2005">{{cite journal | author=Katzin, William E, Ceneno, Jose A, Feng, Lu-Jean et al | title=Pathology of Lymph Nodes From Patients With Breast Implants: A Histologic and Spectroscopic Evaluation. | journal=American Journal of Surgical Pathology | year=2001 | pages=506-511 | volume=29 | issue=4 | id = }}</ref>(enlarged lymph glands in the armpit area).
The specific risk and treatment of extracapsular silicone gel is still controversial. A 2001 study on silicone gel breast implants reported an increase in ] among women with extracapsular leakage, compared to women whose implants were not broken or leaking outside the capsule. <!-- --><ref name="Brown2001">{{cite journal | author=Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, Soo MS, Middleton MS | title=Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women | journal=J Rheumatol | year=2001 | pages=996-1003 | volume=28 | issue=5 | id=PMID 11361228 }}</ref>. This association has not been reproduced in a number of other studies, and the FDA has since concluded "the weight of the epidemiological evidence published in the literature does not support an association between fibromyalgia and breast implants." <p> Another shortcoming of previous studies is that most relied on clinical exams to determine rupture rates. Research indicates that clinical exams alone are inadequate to rule out suspected rupture.<!-- --><ref name="Holmich2005">{{cite journal | author=Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K, Breiting VB, Jorgensen A, Krag C, McLaughlin JK | title= The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging | journal=Ann Plast Surg | year=2005 | pages=583-9 | volume=54 | issue=6 | id=PMID 15900139}}</ref> Since the research indicates that most ruptures of silicone gel implants are "silent," with no symptoms, the FDA has concluded that MRIs are necessary to most accurately identify rupture prior to surgery. Because of the risk of silent ruptures, the FDA recommends an MRI at three years after implantation and then every two years thereafter for screening purposes. <p>

Neither of the two US implant manufacturers have collected MRI data on rupture or leakage for women implants for more than 3 years.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine if the implants that those companies currently sell have a different rupture rate or likelihood of leakage compared to the implants in the FDA study cited above, which included Mentor and Inamed implants as well as implants made by other companies.<p>

One of the only published studies with randomized MRI data on single lumen 3rd/4th generation silicone implants concluded that "the risk of implant rupture increases with implant age" and "a minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation."<!-- --><ref name="Holmich2003"> {{cite journal | author=Holmich LR, et al | title=Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture.| journal=Arch Surg. | year=2003 | pages=801-6| volume=138 | issue=7 | id=PMID 12860765}}</ref> This study did not report the number of women with ruptured implants, but rather the percentage of implants that were ruptured. Since most women in the study who had a ruptured implant, had only one that was ruptured rather than two, the results indicate that at least 30% of women will experience at least one ruptured implant between the 3-10 years after augmentation. <p>

A recent study funded by Inamed, similarly evaluated the percentage of implants that were ruptured, and was scientifically biased because it excluded women whose implants were removed within the first 10 years. <!-- --><ref name="Heden2006"> {{cite journal | author=Heden P, et al | title=Prevalence of rupture in inamed silicone breast implants.| journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=303-8| volume=118 | issue=2 | id=PMID 16874191}}</ref> It is therefore not surprising that the rupture prevalence in this small study was 8% at 11 years, involving approximately 16% of the women.<p>

When silicone implants break they rarely deflate, and the silicone from the implant can leak out into the intracapsular space around the implant. An intracapsular rupture can progress to outside of the capsule (extracapsular rupture), and when recognized, both conditions are generally agreed to indicate the need for removal of the implant. Extracapsular silicone has the potential to migrate to the breast and the lymph nodes under the arm, resulting in ] (inflammatory nodules) and ]ry ] <!-- --><ref name="Katzin 2005">{{cite journal | author=Katzin, William E, Ceneno, Jose A, Feng, Lu-Jean et al | title=Pathology of Lymph Nodes From Patients With Breast Implants: A Histologic and Spectroscopic Evaluation. | journal=American Journal of Surgical Pathology | year=2001 | pages=506-511 | volume=29 | issue=4 | id = }}</ref>(enlarged lymph glands in the armpit area).
It is unknown how often that happens or what the health consequences will be if a ruptured implant remains in the body for several years. <!-- --><ref name="Holmich2004">{{cite journal| author=Holmich LR , et. al |title= Untreated silicone breast implant rupture | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg.| year=2004|pages=204-14|volume=114 | issue=1 |id= PMID 15220594 }}</ref> However, a 2001 study on silicone gel breast implants reported an increase in ] among women with extracapsular leakage, compared to women whose implants were not broken or leaking outside the capsule. <!-- --><ref name="Brown2001">{{cite journal | author=Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, Soo MS, Middleton MS | title=Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women | journal=J Rheumatol | year=2001 | pages=996-1003 | volume=28 | issue=5 | id=PMID 11361228 }}</ref>


===Capsular contracture=== ===Capsular contracture===
Capsules of tightly-woven collagen fibers form as an ] around a foreign body (eg. breast implants, pacemakers, orthopedic joint prosthetics), tending to wall it off. ] occurs when the capsule tightens and squeezes the implant. This contracture is a complication that can be very painful and distort the appearance of the implanted breast. The exact cause of contracture is not known. However, some factors include bacterial contamination, silicone rupture or leakage, and hematoma.] may happen again after this additional surgery.<p> Capsules of tightly-woven collagen fibers form as an ] around a foreign body (eg. breast implants, pacemakers, orthopedic joint prosthetics), tending to wall it off. ] occurs when the capsule tightens or hardens around the implant. This contracture is a complication that can be very painful and distort the appearance of the implanted breast. <p>
Methods which have been successful for reducing capsular contracture rates include submuscular implant placement, using textured <!-- --><ref name="Barnsley2006">{{cite journal | author=Barnsley GP| title= Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=2182-90| volume=117 | issue=7 | id=PMID 16772915}}</ref>or polyurethane-coated implants <!-- --><ref name="Handel2006">{{cite journal | author=Handel N, et al| title= Long-term safety and efficacy of polyurethane foam-covered breast implants. | journal=Aesth. Surg Journal | year=2006 | month=may | pages=265-74| volume=26 | issue=3 |}}</ref> , limiting handling of the implants and skin contact prior to insertion <!-- --><ref name="Mladick1993">{{cite journal | author=Mladick RA| title= "No-touch" submuscular saline breast augmentation technique. | journal=Aesth. Surg Journal | year=1993 | pages=183-92| volume=17 | issue=3 | id= PMID 8213311 }}</ref> , and irrigation with triple-antibiotic solutions as described by Adams, et al.<!-- --><ref name="Adams2006">{{cite journal | author=Adams WP jr., et al| title= Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery using triple antibiotic breast irrigation: six-year prospective clinical study. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=30-36 | volume=117 | issue=1 | id=PMID 16404244}}</ref> <p> <br>
Correction of ] may require surgical removal or release of the capsule or removal (and possible replacement) of the implant itself. Closed capsulotomy (disrupting the capsule via external manipulation), a once common maneuver for treating hard capsules, has been discouraged as it can facilitate implant rupture. Nonsurgical methods of treating capsules include external ultrasound <!-- --><ref name="Planas2001">{{cite journal | author=Planas J| title= Five-year experience on ultrasonic treatment of breast contractures. | journal=Aesthetic Plast Surg. | year=2001| pages=89-93 | volume=25 | issue=2 | id=PMID 11349308}}</ref>,treatment with leukotriene pathway inhibitors (Accolate, Singulair) <!-- --><ref name="Schlesinger2002">{{cite journal | author=Schlesinger SL, wt al| title= Zafirlukast (Accolate): A new treatment for capsular contracture. | journal=Aesthetic Plast Surg. | year=2002| pages=329-336| volume=22 | issue=4}}</ref>, and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy. <!-- --><ref name="Silver1982">{{cite journal | author=Silver H| title= Reduction of capsular contracture with two-stage augmentation mammaplasty and pulsed electromagnetic energy (Diapulse therapy). | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=1982| pages=802-8 | volume=69 | issue=5 | id=PMID 7071225}}</ref> <P>


There are four grades of capsular contracture:<p>
===Systematic reviews on claims of systemic illness===
• Grade I - breast normally soft and looks natural <p>
Since the early 1990s, nearly a dozen comprehensive systemic reviews have been commissioned by various governments' health ministries to examine the alleged links between silicone gel breast implants and systemic diseases. A clear consensus has emerged from these independent scientific reviews that there is no clear evidence of a causal link between the implantation of silicones and connective tissue disease. The conclusions of these reviews are summarized:<p>
• Grade II - breast little firm and looks normal <p>
• Grade III - breast firm and looks abnormal (visible distortion) <p>
• Grade IV - breast hard, painful and looks abnormal (greater distortion) <p>


The exact cause of contracture is not known. However, several factors that increase capsular contracture include bacterial contamination, silicone rupture or leakage, and hematoma. Correction of ] usually requires surgical removal or release of the capsule and removal (and possible replacement) of the implant itself. Capsular contracture tends to recur if the implant is replaced.<p>
{| border=1
! Year
! Country
! Systematic Review Group
! Conclusions
|-
| 1991-1993
| United Kingdom
| Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG)
| The IEAG concluded that there was no evidence of an increased risk of connective tissue disease in patients who had undergone silicone gel breast implantation and that there was no scientific case for changing practice or policy in the UK in respect of breast implantation
|-
| 1996
| USA
| US Institute of Medicine ('''IOM''')<!--
--> <ref name="Brinton1996">{{cite journal | author=Brinton LA, Malone KE, Coates RJ, Schoenberg JB, Swanson CA, Daling JR, Stanford JL | title=Breast enlargement and reduction: results from a breast cancer case-control study | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg | year=1996 | pages=269-75 | volume=97 | issue=2 | id=PMID 8559808}}</ref>
| Not "sufficient evidence for an association of silicone gel- or saline-filled breast implants with defined connective tissue disease".
|-
| 1996
| France
| Agence Nationale pour le Developpement de l'Evaluation Medicale ('''ANDEM''')
| "Nous n’avons pas observé de connectivite ni d’autre pathologie auto-immune susceptible d’être directement ou indirectement induite par la présence d’un implant mammaire en particulier en gel de silicone..." (We did not observe connective tissue or other diseases to be directly or indirectly associated with (in particular) silicone gel breast implants)
|-
| 1997
| Australia
| Australia’s Therapeutic Devices Evaluation Committee review
| "current high quality literature suggest that there is no association between breast implants and connective tissue disease-like syndromes (atypical connective tissue diseases)"
|-
| 1998
| Germany
| Germany’s Federal Institute for Medicine and Medical Products
| concluded that "silicone breast implants neither cause auto-immune diseases nor rheumatic diseases and have no disadvantageous effects on pregnancy, breast feeding capability or the health of children who are breast fed. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of silicone allergy, silicone poisoning, atypical silicone diseases or a new silicone disease"<!-- --> <ref name="Germany1998">{{cite ref | title=German Society for Senology, Declaration of Consensus for the Security of Silicone Breast Implants-September 24, 1998 | year=1998}}</ref>
|-
| 2000
| USA
| Review request of the United States Federal Judiciary<!--
--><ref name="NEJM2000-Janowsky">{{cite journal | author=Janowsky EC, Kupper LL, Hulka BS | title=Meta-analyses of the relation between silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases | journal=N Engl J Med | year=2000 | pages=781-90 | volume=342 | issue=11 | id=PMID 10717013}}</ref>
| "no evidence of an association between...silicone-gel-filled breast implants specifically, and any of the individual CTDs, all definite CTDs combined, or other autoimmune or rheumatic conditions."
|-
| 2000
| European Union
| European Committee on Quality Assurance & Medical Devices in Plastic Surgery ('''EQUAM''')
| "Additional medical studies have not demonstrated any association between silicone-gel filled breast implants and traditional auto-immune or connective tissue diseases, cancer, nor any other malignant disease....EQUAM continues to believe that there is no scientific evidence that silicone allergy, silicone intoxication, atypical disease or a 'new silicone disease' exists."
|-
| 2001
| Great Britain
| UK Independent Review Group ('''UK-IRG''')
| "there is no evidence of an association with an abnormal immune response or typical or atypical connective tissue diseases or syndromes"
|-
| 2001
| USA
| Review for court appointed ] <!--
--><ref name="ArthritisRheum2001-Tugwell">{{cite journal | author=Tugwell P, Wells G, Peterson J, Welch V, Page J, Davison C, McGowan J, Ramroth D, Shea B | title=Do silicone breast implants cause rheumatologic disorders? A systematic review for a court-appointed national science panel | journal=Arthritis Rheum | year=2001 | pages=2477-84 | volume=44 | issue=11 | id=PMID 11710703}}</ref>
| The panel evaluated both established and undifferentiated connective tissue diseases and concluded that there was no evidence of an association between breast implants and these CTDs.
|-
| 2003
| Spain
| '''STOA''' Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee
| Regarding new scientific evidence, the currently available information shows that there is not solid evidence linking SBI to severe diseases (such as breast cancer or connective tissue diseases).
|-
|}


Implant manufacturers warn against the use of closed capsulotomy, a once-common, painful procedure whereby the capsule is broken by squeezing, because it can cause implants to rupture. <p>
Thousands of women have still claimed that they have become ill from their implants. Complaints include systemic fungal infections, ] and ] problems.


There is some evidence that submuscular implant placement, using textured implants can reduce capsular contracture <!-- --><ref name="Barnsley2006">{{cite journal | author=Barnsley GP| title= Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=2182-90| volume=117 | issue=7 | id=PMID 16772915}} ]}}</ref>
As studies have followed women with implants for a longer period of time, more information has been made available to assess these issues. A 2004 Danish study, reported that women who had breast implants for an average of 19 years were no more likely to report an excess number of rheumatic symptoms then control groups.<ref name="Breiting2004">{{cite journal | author=Breiting VB, Holmich LR, Brandt B, Fryzek JP, Wolthers MS, Kjoller K, McLaughlin JK, Wiik A, Friis S | title=Long-term health status of Danish women with silicone breast implants | journal= Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery| year=2004 | pages=217-226 | volume=114 | id= PMID 15220596}}</ref>

A large study of plastic surgery patients found a decreased ] in both breast implant and other plastic surgery patients, but a relatively increased risk of ] deaths in breast implant recipients compared to other forms of plastic surgery. The authors attributed this to differences in smoking rates.<ref name=Brinton2006>{{cite journal | author=Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Murray MC, Colton T, Hoover RN | title=Mortality rates among augmentation mammoplasty patients: an update | journal=Epidemiology | year=2006 | pages=162-9 | volume=17 | issue=2 | id=PMID 16477256}}</ref> Another large study of nearly 25,000 Canadian women with implants recently reported a 43 percent lower rate of breast cancer compared with the general population and a lower-than-average risk of developing cancer of any kind.<ref name="Villenueve2006">{{cite journal | author=Villenueve PJ, et. al | title=Mortality among Canadian Women with Cosmetic Breast Implants. | journal=Am J Epidemiol| year=2006 | month=June| id=PMID 16777929 }}</ref>
===Hematoma and seroma===

Two known complications of breastimplants include hematoma, the collection of blood inside a body cavity, and seroma, a collection of the watery portion of the blood around the implant or around healing.
A small scar can form or a rupture may occur if the implant is damaged during draining the incision. Post-operative hematoma and seroma may contribute to infection or capsular contracture.<p>

===Changes in nipple and breast sensation===

Feeling in the nipple and breast can change after implant surgery.
Changes vary from intense sensitivity to no feeling in the nipple or breast after surgery. This altered sensation can be temporary or permanent and may affect sexual response or the ability to nurse a baby.<p>

===Extrusion===

Unstable or weakened tissue covering and/or interruption of wound healing may result in extrusion, which is when the breast implant comes through the skin.
Surgery needed to correct this can result in unacceptable scarring or breast tissue loss. <p>

===Necrosis===

Necrosis, the death of tissue around the implant, requires surgery and may necessitate implant removal.
According to studies by Inamed, necrosis occurs more frequently for silicone gel breast implants than saline implants and more frequently for reconstruction patients than augmentation patients. A permanent scar may form.<p>



==Diseases and Systemic Illness==

Thousands of women have claimed that they became ill from their implants, particularly when silicone implants ruptured. Complaints include neurological and rheumatological problems. Although information from individual reports is considered anecdotal regardless of the numbers involved, peer-reviewed studies indicate that subjective and objective symptoms of many women with implants improve when their implants are removed. For example, in a comparison study, rheumatologists reported that women with rheumatological symptoms who had their implants removed and not replaced experienced limprovement in their health, and women whose implants were not removed or removed and replaced did not. <ref name=Vasey2003>{{cite journal | author=Vasey FB, Zarabadi SA, Seleznick M, Ricca L | title=Where there's smoke there's fire: the silicone breast implant controversy continues to flicker: a new disease that needs to be defined | journal=J Rheumatol | year=2003 | pages=2092-4 | volume=30 | issue=10 | id=PMID 14528500}}</ref> More research is needed to determine how often implant removal results in a reduction in rheumatological symptoms.<p>

Numerous reports have reported that there is no evidence of increased mortality or classically defined autoimmune diseases among women with silicone breast implants. These include the Canadian Expert Advisory Committee review in 1992, ANDEM in France in 1996, the UK Independent Review Group 1998, and the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1999, and the Scientific Technical Opinions Assessment (STOA) report commissioned by the European Parliament in 2001 (updated in 2003). Although these reports were independently conducted and funded, they did not conduct new studies and were instead based on the published research available at the time, most of which were funded by Dow Corning at a time that the company was being sued by women claiming illness from their breast implants. <p>

Many of these reports are based on studies with small sample sizes that included women who had implants for just a few months or years. Years later, in 2004, the FDA pointed out that previous studies were not large enough to answer the question of whether or not breast implants increase the risk of connective tissue disease or related disorders. Several autoimmune conditions, such as scleroderma and Sjogren's, are rare and require large numbers of study participants in order to ensure that increases risks can be detected. Researchers must study a large group of women without breast implants who are of similar age, health, and social status and who are followed for a long time (such as 10-20 years) before a relationship between breast implants and these diseases can conclusively be made. <ref name=Zuckerman2006>{{cite journal | author=Zuckerman D | title=Breast Implants: Making an Informed Decision | journal=Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine | year=2006 | pages=547-9 | volume=6 | issue=9 | }}</ref> The FDA states: "When considered together, these studies indicate that the risk of developing a typical or defined CTD or related disorder due to having a breast implant is low. However, these studies have not been large enough to resolve the question of whether or not breast implants slightly increase the risk of CTDs or related disorders. Researchers must study a large group of women without breast implants who are of similar age, health, and social status and who are followed for a long time (such as 10-20 years) before a relationship between breast implants and these diseases can conclusively be made." <p>

There is no conclusive evidence linking breast implants to disease diagnosis, but as studies have followed women with implants for a longer period of time, evidence has grown regarding symptoms that are typical of autoimmune diseases. A Danish study, funded by Dow Corning and the Danish Cancer Society, reported that women who had breast implants for an average of 19 years were significantly more likely to report fatigue, Raynaud-like symptoms (white fingers and toes when exposed to cold), and memory loss and other cognitive symptoms, compared to women of the same age in the general population. <ref name=Breiting2004>{{cite journal | author=Breiting VB, Holmich LR, Brandt B | title=Long-term health status of Danish women with silicone breast implants | journal=Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery| year=2004 | pages=217-226 | volume=114 |}}</ref> Despite reporting that women with implants were between two and three times as likely to report those symptoms, the researchers concluded that long-term exposure to breast implants "does not appear to be associated with autoimmune symptoms or diseases." <p>

Meanwhile, research on symptoms suggests that even in the short-term, women with silicone implants report more autoimmune symptoms. In data presented to the FDA, Inamed and Mentor both found that women with implants for only two years had a significant increase in auto-immune symptoms such as joint pain and nervous system symptoms. The findings remained significant when the women's age was statistically controlled. <p>

Despite these concerns, it is generally acknowledged that women undergoing breast augmentation or other plastic surgery tend to be healthier than the general population. In a study of several thousand plastic surgery patients, scientists from the National Cancer Institute found that augmented women were healthier than the general population, and yet were twice as likely to die from lung cancer or brain cancer, compared with other plastic surgery patients.
<ref name=Brinton2006>{{cite journal | author=Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Murray MC, Colton T, Hoover RN | title=Mortality rates among augmentation mammoplasty patients: an update | journal=Epidemiology | year=2006 | pages=162-9 | volume=17 | issue=2 | id=PMID 16477256}}</ref> There were no reported differences in smoking habits that would explain the difference in lung cancer deaths; the authors suggested that more research was needed to determine if implants increase the risk of lung cancer or if undocumented differences in smoking were a contributing factor. <p>

There is no evidence from the National Cancer Institute study or other studies that implant patients have a higher risk of death from breast cancer as compared with either the general population or other plastic surgery patients. <p>

Another large study of nearly 25,000 Canadian women with implants reported lower cancer rates among augmentation patients, which the authors attributed to their higher income and better health prior to surgery. <ref name="Villenueve2006">{{cite journal | author=Villenueve PJ, et. al | title=Mortality among Canadian Women with Cosmetic Breast Implants. | journal=Am J Epidemiol| year=2006 | month=June| id=PMID 16777929 }}</ref>

==Platinum==


===Platinum===
] is a ] used in the making of silicone implant polymer shells and other silicone devices used in medicine. The literature indicates that small amounts of platinum leaches (leaks) from these implants and is present in the surrounding tissue. The FDA reviewed the available studies from the medical literature on platinum and breast implants in 2002 and concluded there was little evidence suggesting toxicity from platinum in implant patients. <ref name="arepelli2003">{{cite journal | author=Arepelli S, et al. | title=Allergic reactions to platinum in silicone breast implants. | journal=J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants | year=2002 | pages=299-306 | id=PMID 12627791 }}</ref> </p> ] is a ] used in the making of silicone implant polymer shells and other silicone devices used in medicine. The literature indicates that small amounts of platinum leaches (leaks) from these implants and is present in the surrounding tissue. The FDA reviewed the available studies from the medical literature on platinum and breast implants in 2002 and concluded there was little evidence suggesting toxicity from platinum in implant patients. <ref name="arepelli2003">{{cite journal | author=Arepelli S, et al. | title=Allergic reactions to platinum in silicone breast implants. | journal=J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants | year=2002 | pages=299-306 | id=PMID 12627791 }}</ref> </p>
In 2006, researchers published a controversial study that claimed to identify the previously undocumented presence of toxic platinum oxidative states in vivo. <ref name="AnalChem2006-Lykissa">{{cite journal | author = Lykissa E.D. and Maharaj S.V.M. | year = 2006 | month = April | title = Total Platinum Concentration and Platinum Oxidation States in Body Fluids, Tissue, and Explants from Women Exposed to Silicone and Saline Breast Implants by IC-ICPMS | journal = Anal. Chem. | volume = | issue = | pages = | id =(due publication May 2006) | url =http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/ancham/asap/abs/ac0514016.html | accessdate =2006-04-06 (Web)}}</ref>. A letter from the editors of the publishing journal, ''Analytical Chemistry'', subsequently expressed concern over the research's experimental design and urged the journal's readers to "use caution in evaluating the conclusions drawn in the paper."The FDA reviewed this study and the existing literature, concluding that the body of existing research did not support their findings, and that the platinum in new implants is likely not ionized and therefore would not represent a significant risk to women. In 2006, researchers published a controversial study that reported the presence of toxic platinum salts in the blood, urine, and breast milk of women with silicone gel breast implants, but not in women with saline implants. <ref name="AnalChem2006-Lykissa">{{cite journal | author = Lykissa E.D. and Maharaj S.V.M. | year = 2006 | month = April | title = Total Platinum Concentration and Platinum Oxidation States in Body Fluids, Tissue, and Explants from Women Exposed to Silicone and Saline Breast Implants by IC-ICPMS | journal = Anal. Chem. | volume = | issue = | pages = | id =(due publication May 2006) | url =http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/ancham/asap/abs/ac0514016.html | accessdate =2006-04-06 (Web)}}</ref>. Despite the lack of any other peer-reviewed research on the platinum in women's bodies or breast milk, the FDA has stated that the platinum in silicone implants is likely not ionized and therefore would not represent a significant risk to women.

==Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Problems for Implant Patients==


Breast implants are radio-opaque, showing up as white solid shapes on mammograms and interfering with their accuracy. Specialized radiographic techniques, using extra views where the implant is manually displaced ("'''Eklund views'''") may improve this somewhat, but studies show that these are still less accurate than mammograms for women without implants. For example, one study found that 55% of cancerous tumors were undetected because of implants. <ref name="Miglioretti2004">{{cite journal | author=Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Cutter G, Barlow WE, Rosenberg R, Weaver DL, Taplin SH, Ballard-Barbash R, Carney PA, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K | title=Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. |journal=JAMA | year=2004
==Concerns with breast cancer screening and treatment in patients with breast implants==
|pages=442-50 | id=PMID 14747501}}</ref> Another study similarly found that one-third of the breast is not adequately visualized even with Eklund displacement views, resulting in an increase in false-negative mammograms.<ref name="Handel1992">{{cite journal | author=Handel, N., Silverstein, M. J., Gamagami, P., Jensen, J. A., and Collins, A. | title=actors affecting mammographic visualization of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty.| journal=JAMA| year=1992| pages=1913-17 | id=PMID 1404718}}</ref> <p>
The presence of radio-opaque breast implants may interfere with the sensitivity of screening mammography. Specialized radiographic techniques where the implant is manually displaced ("'''Eklund views'''") may improve this somewhat, but approximately 1/3 of the breast is still not adequately visualized with a resultant increase in false-negative mammograms.<ref name="Handel1992">{{cite journal | author=Handel, N., Silverstein, M. J., Gamagami, P., Jensen, J. A., and Collins, A. | title=actors affecting mammographic visualization of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty.| journal=JAMA| year=1992| pages=1913-17 | id=PMID 1404718}}</ref>A number of studies looking at breast cancers in women with implants have found no significant difference in stage of disease at time of diagnosis, and prognosis appears to be similar in both groups with augmented patients not a higher risk for subsequent cancer recurrence or death.<ref name="Clark1993">{{cite journal | author=Clark CP 3rd, Peters GN, O'Brien KM. | title=Cancer in the augmented breast. Diagnosis and prognosis.| journal=Cancer | year=1993| pages=2170-4 | id=PMID 8374874 }}</ref><ref name="Skinner2001">{{cite journal | author=Skinner KA, Silberman H, Dougherty W, Gamagami P, Waisman J, Sposto R, Silverstein MJ. | title=Breast cancer after augmentation mammoplasty.| journal=Ann Surg Oncol. | year=2001| pages=138-44 | id=PMID 11258778 }}</ref> Conversely, the use of implants for reconstruction ''after'' mastectomy for breast cancer also appears not to have a negative affect on cancer-related mortality.<ref name="Lee2005">{{cite journal | author=Le GM, O'Malley CD, Glaser SL, Lynch CF, Stanford JL, Keegan TH, West DW. | title=Breast implants following mastectomy in women with early-stage breast cancer: prevalence and impact on survival.| journal=Breast Cancer Res.| year=2005| pages=R184-93 | id=PMID 15743498}}</ref></p>


An observation that patients with implants are more often diagnosed with palpable tumors (but not larger ones) suggest that tumors of equal size may be more easily palpated in augmented patients, and this may compensate somewhat for the potential impairment of mammography.<ref name="Handel2006">{{cite journal | author=Handel N, Silverstein MJ | title=Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in augmented women.| journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=587-93 | id=PMID 16932162 }}</ref> This palpability is due to thinning of the breast by compression, innately smaller breasts a priori, and that the implant serves as a base against which the mass may be differentiated.<ref name="Cunningham2006">{{cite journal | author=Cunningham B | title=Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in augmented women- Discussion| journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | year=2006 | pages=594-5 | id=PMID 16932163 }}</ref>


Nevertheless, several studies of breast cancers in women with implants have found a similar prognosis for augmented patients compared to women without implants <ref name="Clark1993">{{cite journal | author=Clark CP 3rd, Peters GN, O'Brien KM. | title=Cancer in the augmented breast. Diagnosis and prognosis.| journal=Cancer | year=1993| pages=2170-4 | id=PMID 8374874 }}</ref> or after reconstruction for mastectomy.<ref name="Lee2005">{{cite journal | author=Le GM, O'Malley CD, Glaser SL, Lynch CF, Stanford JL, Keegan TH, West DW. | title=Breast implants following mastectomy in women with early-stage breast cancer: prevalence and impact on survival.| journal=Breast Cancer Res.| year=2005| pages=R184-93 | id=PMID 15743498}}</ref></p>
The presence of a breast implant does not influence the ability for breast conservation (lumpectomy) surgery to be offered for women who subsequently develop breast cancer, and does not interfere with delivery of external beam radiation (XRT) treatments that may be required. <ref name="Scwartz2006">{{cite journal | author=SChwartz GF, et. al. | title=Consensus Conference on Breast Conservation| journal=JACAS | year=2006 | pages=198-207 | id=PMID 16864033 }}</ref>Fibrosis of breast tissue after XRT is common and an increase in capsular contracture rates would be expected.


Although implants for augmentation do not eliminate the opportunity for breast conservation (lumpectomy) surgery for a woman who subsequently developes breast cancer, it decreases the chances of a successful outcome. Women with augmented breasts are less likely to undergo lumpectomy than other women, and radiation for women with implants commonly causes fibrosis of breast tissue and an increase in capsular contracture. <ref name="Gray2004">{{cite journal | author=Gray RJ, Forstner-Barthell AW, Pockaj BA, Schild SE, Halyard MY | title=Breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy are feasible in cancer patients with previous implant breast augmentation| journal=American Journal of Surgery | year=2004 | pages=122-5 | PMID=15249236}}</ref> <ref name="Scwartz2006">{{cite journal | author=Schwartz GF, et. al. | title=Consensus Conference on Breast Conservation| journal=JACAS | year=2006 | pages=198-207 | id=PMID 16864033 }}</ref>
==Repair or revision surgery==
Regardless of the type of implant, it is likely that women with implants will need to have one or more additional surgeries (reoperations) over the course of their lives. The most common reasons for reoperations are cosmetic concerns and capsular contracture.{{fact}} Reoperation rates are more frequent in breast reconstruction cases, particularly when patients have received XRT.


==Revision surgery==
It appears that reoperation rates can be improved dramatically in aesthetic surgery by more carefully matching individual patients' soft-tissue characteristics to the type and size of implants used. Using appropriate device selection and proper technique, reoperation rates at up to seven years follow up have been reported as low as 3% <ref name="Tebbets2006">{{cite journal | author= Tebbets JB | title=Out points" criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation. | year=2006 | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | month= Oct | volume=114 | issue=5 | pages=1258-62 |id= PMID 15457046}} </ref> <ref name="Tebbets2">{{cite journal | author= Tebbets JB | title=Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study.. | year=2006 | journal=Plast Reconstr Surg. | month= Dec | volume=118 | issue=6 | pages=1453-7 |id= PMID 17051118}} </ref>
Regardless of the type of implant, it is likely that women with implants will need to have one or more additional surgeries (reoperations) over the course of their lives. The most common reasons for reoperations are capsular contracture and suspected rupture, both of which occur frequently within 10 years. Reoperation rates are more frequent in breast reconstruction cases. A study funded by Dow Corning reported a 21% re-operation rate for reconstruction patients with implants for an average of 23 months.
<!-- --><ref name="Henriksen2005"> {{cite journal | author=Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR et al | title=Reconstructive breast implantation after mastectomy for breast cancer: clinical outcomes in a nationwide prospective cohort study| journal=Arch Surg. | year=2005 | pages=1152-9| volume=140 | id=PMID 16365235}}</ref> The re-operation rate was twice as high in an FDA analysis of reconstruction patients studied by Inamed. <[>


==References== ==References==
Line 256: Line 166:


===Silicone Breast Implants=== ===Silicone Breast Implants===
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
* *



Revision as of 02:59, 29 November 2006

A breast implant is a prosthesis used to enlarge the size of a woman's breasts (known as breast augmentation) for cosmetic reasons, to reconstruct the breast (e.g. after a mastectomy or to correct genetic deformities), or as an aspect of male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, breast augmentation is the third most commonly performed cosmetic surgical procedure in the United States. In 2005, 291,000 breast augmentation procedures were performed.

There are two primary types of breast implants: saline filled and silicone gel filled implants. Saline implants have a silicone elastomer shell filled with sterile saline liquid. Silicone gel implants have a silicone shell filled with a viscous silicone gel.

History

Implants have been used since 1895 to augment the size or shape of women's breasts. The earliest known implant was attempted by Czerny, using a woman's own adipose tissue (from a lipoma, a benign growth, on her back). Gersuny tried paraffin injections in 1889, with disastrous results. Subsequently, in the early to mid-1900s, a number of other substances were tried, including ivory, glass balls, ground rubber, ox cartilage, Terylene wool, gutta percha, Dicora, polyethylene chips, polyvinyl alcohol-formaldehyde polymer sponge (Ivalon), Ivalon in a polyethylene sac, polyether foam sponge (Etheron), polyethylene tape (Polystan) or strips wound into a ball, polyester (polyurethane foam sponge) Silastic rubber, and teflon-silicone prostheses.In recent history, various creams and medicaments have been used in attempts to increase bust size, and Berson in 1945 and Maliniac in 1950 performed a flap-based augmentation by rotating the patients chest wall tissue into the breast to add volume. Various synthetics were used throughout the 1950s and 1960s, including silicone injections, which an estimated 50,000 women received. Development of silicone granulomas and hardening of the breasts were in some cases so severe that women needed to have mastectomies for treatment. Women sometimes seek medical treatment for complications up to 30 years after receiving this type of injection.

Indications

Clinical indications for the use of breast implants are for breast reconstruction, sex reassignment surgery, and for abnormalities that affect the shape and size of the breast. In some countries health insurers will reimburse insertion of breast implants only for these indications. Non-clinical indications (the most common reasons) are cosmetic.

Patient Characteristics

Patients seeking breast augmentation are usually younger, healthier, and from higher socio-economic status than the population at large. Studies suggest that women who undergo breast implantation do not differ in self-esteem compared to other women, but are less satisfied with their breast size, and report a larger ideal breast size, with almost all choosing a cup size of C or D. This research indicates that desiring breast augmentation is not a function solely of small breast size but may also result from an ideal that is larger than that reported by the general population.

Benefits

A few post-operative surveys on mental health and quality of life issues have indicated improvement in physical health, physical appearance, social life and self confidence. However, these studies measure short-term outcomes and have other methodological shortcomings.

When the FDA compared scores on established self-esteem and quality of life measures before and two years after breast augmentation, they found either no improvement or a statistically significant decrease on most measures for Inamed patients and Mentor patients

In addition, five studies have found statistically significant doubling in suicides among women with breast augmenation compared with similar women in the general population or with other plastic surgery patients and a 2006 study conducted among 24,600 women by the Universite Laval Faculty of Medicine, the Canadian Public Health Agency and Cancer Care Ontario found that the suicide rate among women with breast implants is 73% higher than in the general population.

Types of implants

Saline Implants

Saline-filled breast implants were first manufactured in France in 1964, introduced by Arion with the goal of being surgically placed via smaller incisions. These original devices had a high failure rate and were discontinued in the early 1970s . The current devices are manufactured with thicker, room temperature vulcanized (RTV) shells. These shells are made of silicone elastomer and the implants are filled with salt water after the implant is placed in the body. Since the implants are empty when they are surgically inserted, the scar is smaller than is necessary for silicone gel breast implants (which are filled with silicone before the surgery is performed).

Saline-filled implants are the most common implant used in the United States due to restrictions on silicone implants, but are rarely used in other countries. Good to excellent results may be obtained, but as compared to silicone gel implants, saline implants are more likely to cause cosmetic problems such as rippling, wrinkling, and be noticeable to the eye or the touch. Particularly for women with very little breast tissue, or for post-mastectomy reconstruction, plastic surgeons believe that silicone gel implants are the superior device. In patients with more breast tissue, however, saline implants can look very similar to silicone gel.

Silicone gel implants

Thomas Cronin and Frank Gerow, two Houston, Texas, plastic surgeons, developed the first silicone breast prosthesis with the Dow Corning Corporation in 1961. The first woman was implanted in 1962.

Silicone implant generations

Silicone implants are generally described in terms of five generations which segregates common characteristics of manufacturing techniques.

  • First generation

The Cronin-Gerow implants were made of a silicone rubber envelope (or sac), filled with a thick, viscous silicone gel with a Dacron patch on the posterior shell. They were firm and had a "teardrop" anatomic shape.

  • Second generation

Breast implants were redesigned in the 1970s with thinner gel and thinner shells, to make the implants softer and insertion easier. These implants had a greater tendency to rupture and leak, or "bleed" silicone through the porous shell, and complications such as capsular contracture were also quite common. It was predominantly implants of this generation that were involved in the class action-lawsuits against Dow-Corning in the early 1990s. Another development in the late 1970s and 1980s was a polyurethane foam coating on the implant shell which was effective in diminishing capsular contracture by causing an inflammatory reaction that discouraged formation of fibrous tissue around the capsule. The polyurethane was not medical grade, however, and the impants were difficult to surgically remove. They were later discontinued when the polyurethane was found to break down into TDA in the breast and breast milk; TDA is a known animal carcinogen. Polyurethane implants are still used in Europe and South America, but no manufacturer has sought FDA approval for sale in the United States. Second-generation implants also included various "double lumen" designs. These implants were essentially a silicone implant inside a saline implant. The double lumen was an attempt to provide the cosmetic benefits of gel in the inside lumen, while the outside lumen contained saline and its volume could be adjusted after placement. The failure rate of these implants is higher than for single lumen implants due to their more complex design. The contemporary versions of these devices ("Becker Implants") are used primarily for breast reconstruction.

  • Third & Fourth generation
Silicone gel-filled breast implants (3rd generation)

Third & fourth generation implants, represented sequential advances in manufacturing principles and were elastomer-coated to decrease gel bleed, and a filled with thicker, more cohesive gel. These implants are sold under restricted conditions in the U.S. and Canada, and are widely used in other countries. The increased cohesion of the gel filler reduces leakage of the gel compared to earlier devices. A variety of both round and tapered anatomic shapes are available. Anatomic shaped implants are uniformly textured to reduce rotation, while round devices are available in smooth or textured surfaces.

  • Fifth generation

Evaluation of "gummy bear" or high-cohesive, form-stable implants is in preliminary stages in the United States but are widely used in the rest of the world. Implant manufacturers claim that the high degree of gel cohesion in these implants is likely to eliminate or significantly reduce the possibility of silicone migration. However, no long-term peer-reviewed studies are available to determine if these claims are accurate.

Silicone Implant Controversy

Although silicone gel-filled breast implants were introduced into the US market in the 1960s, the FDA did not have a statutory basis to regulate most medical devices until 1976. At that time, the U.S. FDA was required by law to examine the safety and effectiveness of all medical devices, including breast implants. Any devices which raised concerns among FDA scientists were classified as requiring evidence of safety and efficacy. In the early 1990's, the FDA notified implant manufacturers that studies would be required, and in 1992 the FDA concluded that the data submitted were not sufficient to prove safety.

As a result of the companies' failure to prove safety and obtain FDA approval, implants made from silicone gel were restricted in the U.S. in 1992. All women obtaining breast implants in the U.S. were required to participate in clinical trials, primarily for women needing reconstruction after mastectomy or breast deformity, or for women with implants that need to be replaced. Approximately one million women had implants at the time that these restrictions were instituted, and multi-million dollar jury awards and subsequent litigation led manufacturers to agree to a settlement of US$4.25 billion.

In November 2006, the FDA approved silicone implants from two manufacturers under several conditions. According to the FDA website, the approval is only for women ages 22 and older, and is contingent on each of the companies conducting 10-year studies of the complications and health risks of breast implants on at least 40,000 women.

In Canada, a similar series of events occurred where silicone gel-filled prostheses were restricted by Health Canada in 1992 prior to a limited reintroduction in 1999. In October 2006, Health Canada removed the restrictions on the use of these implants.

Complications

Local complications that can occur with breast implants include capsular contracture, rupture, post-operative bleeding (hematoma), fluid collections (seroma), surgical site infection, breast pain, alterations in nipple sensation, interference with breast feeding, visible wrinkling, asymmetric appearance, wound dehiscence (with potential implant exposure), thinning of the breast tissue, and synmastia (disruption of the natural plane between breasts).

Rupture

Intracapsular rupture - with capsule created by the body to wall off (silicone implant) foreign object

Extracapsular rupture - Single lumen silicone implants ruptured a few years before their removal in 2004

Breast implants do not last a lifetime. When saline breast implants break, they often deflate quickly and can be easily removed. Prospective studies of saline-filled breast implants approved by FDA in May 2000 showed rupture/deflation rates of 3-5% at 3 years and 7-10% at 5 years for augmentation patients.

The recent FDA approval of silicone implants stipulates that the manufacturers inform women that the implants "are not lifetime devices" and that most recipients will need at least one additional surgery to replace or remove their implants. Rupture is one reason for reoperation. Among the causes of rupture are damage during implantation or other procedures, trauma to the chest, and the pressure of mammograms. The age and design of the implant are also important factors in rupture, but estimating ruptures rates of contemporary devices has been difficult, because implant designs tend to change just as implants are old enough to study long-term. As a result, most studies include women with a range of implants, some of which are no longer sold.

Another shortcoming of previous studies is that most relied on clinical exams to determine rupture rates. Research indicates that clinical exams alone are inadequate to rule out suspected rupture. Since the research indicates that most ruptures of silicone gel implants are "silent," with no symptoms, the FDA has concluded that MRIs are necessary to most accurately identify rupture prior to surgery. Because of the risk of silent ruptures, the FDA recommends an MRI at three years after implantation and then every two years thereafter for screening purposes.

Neither of the two US implant manufacturers have collected MRI data on rupture or leakage for women implants for more than 3 years. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if the implants that those companies currently sell have a different rupture rate or likelihood of leakage compared to the implants in the FDA study cited above, which included Mentor and Inamed implants as well as implants made by other companies.

One of the only published studies with randomized MRI data on single lumen 3rd/4th generation silicone implants concluded that "the risk of implant rupture increases with implant age" and "a minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation." This study did not report the number of women with ruptured implants, but rather the percentage of implants that were ruptured. Since most women in the study who had a ruptured implant, had only one that was ruptured rather than two, the results indicate that at least 30% of women will experience at least one ruptured implant between the 3-10 years after augmentation.

A recent study funded by Inamed, similarly evaluated the percentage of implants that were ruptured, and was scientifically biased because it excluded women whose implants were removed within the first 10 years. It is therefore not surprising that the rupture prevalence in this small study was 8% at 11 years, involving approximately 16% of the women.

When silicone implants break they rarely deflate, and the silicone from the implant can leak out into the intracapsular space around the implant. An intracapsular rupture can progress to outside of the capsule (extracapsular rupture), and when recognized, both conditions are generally agreed to indicate the need for removal of the implant. Extracapsular silicone has the potential to migrate to the breast and the lymph nodes under the arm, resulting in granulomas (inflammatory nodules) and axillary lymphadenopathy (enlarged lymph glands in the armpit area). It is unknown how often that happens or what the health consequences will be if a ruptured implant remains in the body for several years. However, a 2001 study on silicone gel breast implants reported an increase in fibromyalgia among women with extracapsular leakage, compared to women whose implants were not broken or leaking outside the capsule.

Capsular contracture

Capsules of tightly-woven collagen fibers form as an immune response around a foreign body (eg. breast implants, pacemakers, orthopedic joint prosthetics), tending to wall it off. Capsular contracture occurs when the capsule tightens or hardens around the implant. This contracture is a complication that can be very painful and distort the appearance of the implanted breast.

There are four grades of capsular contracture:

• Grade I - breast normally soft and looks natural

• Grade II - breast little firm and looks normal

• Grade III - breast firm and looks abnormal (visible distortion)

• Grade IV - breast hard, painful and looks abnormal (greater distortion)

The exact cause of contracture is not known. However, several factors that increase capsular contracture include bacterial contamination, silicone rupture or leakage, and hematoma. Correction of capsular contracture usually requires surgical removal or release of the capsule and removal (and possible replacement) of the implant itself. Capsular contracture tends to recur if the implant is replaced.

Implant manufacturers warn against the use of closed capsulotomy, a once-common, painful procedure whereby the capsule is broken by squeezing, because it can cause implants to rupture.

There is some evidence that submuscular implant placement, using textured implants can reduce capsular contracture

Hematoma and seroma

Two known complications of breastimplants include hematoma, the collection of blood inside a body cavity, and seroma, a collection of the watery portion of the blood around the implant or around healing.

A small scar can form or a rupture may occur if the implant is damaged during draining the incision. Post-operative hematoma and seroma may contribute to infection or capsular contracture.

Changes in nipple and breast sensation

Feeling in the nipple and breast can change after implant surgery.

Changes vary from intense sensitivity to no feeling in the nipple or breast after surgery. This altered sensation can be temporary or permanent and may affect sexual response or the ability to nurse a baby.

Extrusion

Unstable or weakened tissue covering and/or interruption of wound healing may result in extrusion, which is when the breast implant comes through the skin.

Surgery needed to correct this can result in unacceptable scarring or breast tissue loss.

Necrosis

Necrosis, the death of tissue around the implant, requires surgery and may necessitate implant removal.

According to studies by Inamed, necrosis occurs more frequently for silicone gel breast implants than saline implants and more frequently for reconstruction patients than augmentation patients. A permanent scar may form.

Diseases and Systemic Illness

Thousands of women have claimed that they became ill from their implants, particularly when silicone implants ruptured. Complaints include neurological and rheumatological problems. Although information from individual reports is considered anecdotal regardless of the numbers involved, peer-reviewed studies indicate that subjective and objective symptoms of many women with implants improve when their implants are removed. For example, in a comparison study, rheumatologists reported that women with rheumatological symptoms who had their implants removed and not replaced experienced limprovement in their health, and women whose implants were not removed or removed and replaced did not. More research is needed to determine how often implant removal results in a reduction in rheumatological symptoms.

Numerous reports have reported that there is no evidence of increased mortality or classically defined autoimmune diseases among women with silicone breast implants. These include the Canadian Expert Advisory Committee review in 1992, ANDEM in France in 1996, the UK Independent Review Group 1998, and the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1999, and the Scientific Technical Opinions Assessment (STOA) report commissioned by the European Parliament in 2001 (updated in 2003). Although these reports were independently conducted and funded, they did not conduct new studies and were instead based on the published research available at the time, most of which were funded by Dow Corning at a time that the company was being sued by women claiming illness from their breast implants.

Many of these reports are based on studies with small sample sizes that included women who had implants for just a few months or years. Years later, in 2004, the FDA pointed out that previous studies were not large enough to answer the question of whether or not breast implants increase the risk of connective tissue disease or related disorders. Several autoimmune conditions, such as scleroderma and Sjogren's, are rare and require large numbers of study participants in order to ensure that increases risks can be detected. Researchers must study a large group of women without breast implants who are of similar age, health, and social status and who are followed for a long time (such as 10-20 years) before a relationship between breast implants and these diseases can conclusively be made. The FDA states: "When considered together, these studies indicate that the risk of developing a typical or defined CTD or related disorder due to having a breast implant is low. However, these studies have not been large enough to resolve the question of whether or not breast implants slightly increase the risk of CTDs or related disorders. Researchers must study a large group of women without breast implants who are of similar age, health, and social status and who are followed for a long time (such as 10-20 years) before a relationship between breast implants and these diseases can conclusively be made."

There is no conclusive evidence linking breast implants to disease diagnosis, but as studies have followed women with implants for a longer period of time, evidence has grown regarding symptoms that are typical of autoimmune diseases. A Danish study, funded by Dow Corning and the Danish Cancer Society, reported that women who had breast implants for an average of 19 years were significantly more likely to report fatigue, Raynaud-like symptoms (white fingers and toes when exposed to cold), and memory loss and other cognitive symptoms, compared to women of the same age in the general population. Despite reporting that women with implants were between two and three times as likely to report those symptoms, the researchers concluded that long-term exposure to breast implants "does not appear to be associated with autoimmune symptoms or diseases."

Meanwhile, research on symptoms suggests that even in the short-term, women with silicone implants report more autoimmune symptoms. In data presented to the FDA, Inamed and Mentor both found that women with implants for only two years had a significant increase in auto-immune symptoms such as joint pain and nervous system symptoms. The findings remained significant when the women's age was statistically controlled.

Despite these concerns, it is generally acknowledged that women undergoing breast augmentation or other plastic surgery tend to be healthier than the general population. In a study of several thousand plastic surgery patients, scientists from the National Cancer Institute found that augmented women were healthier than the general population, and yet were twice as likely to die from lung cancer or brain cancer, compared with other plastic surgery patients. There were no reported differences in smoking habits that would explain the difference in lung cancer deaths; the authors suggested that more research was needed to determine if implants increase the risk of lung cancer or if undocumented differences in smoking were a contributing factor.

There is no evidence from the National Cancer Institute study or other studies that implant patients have a higher risk of death from breast cancer as compared with either the general population or other plastic surgery patients.

Another large study of nearly 25,000 Canadian women with implants reported lower cancer rates among augmentation patients, which the authors attributed to their higher income and better health prior to surgery.

Platinum

Platinum is a catalyst used in the making of silicone implant polymer shells and other silicone devices used in medicine. The literature indicates that small amounts of platinum leaches (leaks) from these implants and is present in the surrounding tissue. The FDA reviewed the available studies from the medical literature on platinum and breast implants in 2002 and concluded there was little evidence suggesting toxicity from platinum in implant patients.

In 2006, researchers published a controversial study that reported the presence of toxic platinum salts in the blood, urine, and breast milk of women with silicone gel breast implants, but not in women with saline implants. . Despite the lack of any other peer-reviewed research on the platinum in women's bodies or breast milk, the FDA has stated that the platinum in silicone implants is likely not ionized and therefore would not represent a significant risk to women.

Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Problems for Implant Patients

Breast implants are radio-opaque, showing up as white solid shapes on mammograms and interfering with their accuracy. Specialized radiographic techniques, using extra views where the implant is manually displaced ("Eklund views") may improve this somewhat, but studies show that these are still less accurate than mammograms for women without implants. For example, one study found that 55% of cancerous tumors were undetected because of implants. Another study similarly found that one-third of the breast is not adequately visualized even with Eklund displacement views, resulting in an increase in false-negative mammograms.

Nevertheless, several studies of breast cancers in women with implants have found a similar prognosis for augmented patients compared to women without implants or after reconstruction for mastectomy.

Although implants for augmentation do not eliminate the opportunity for breast conservation (lumpectomy) surgery for a woman who subsequently developes breast cancer, it decreases the chances of a successful outcome. Women with augmented breasts are less likely to undergo lumpectomy than other women, and radiation for women with implants commonly causes fibrosis of breast tissue and an increase in capsular contracture.

Revision surgery

Regardless of the type of implant, it is likely that women with implants will need to have one or more additional surgeries (reoperations) over the course of their lives. The most common reasons for reoperations are capsular contracture and suspected rupture, both of which occur frequently within 10 years. Reoperation rates are more frequent in breast reconstruction cases. A study funded by Dow Corning reported a 21% re-operation rate for reconstruction patients with implants for an average of 23 months. The re-operation rate was twice as high in an FDA analysis of reconstruction patients studied by Inamed. <[>

References

  1. 10.2 Million Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Procedures in 2005. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 15 March 2006. Retrieved 17 April 2006.
  2. Czerny V. Plastischer Ersatz der Brusthus durch ein Lipoma. Zentralbl Chir 1895;27:72.
  3. Anderson N. Lawsuit Science: Lessons from the Silicone Breast Implant Controversy. "New York Law School Law Review" 1997; 41 (2), 401-407.
  4. Brinton L, Brown S, Colton T, Burich M, Lubin J (2000). "Characteristics of a population of women with breast implants compared with women seeking other types of plastic surgery". Plast Reconstr Surg. 105 (3): 919–27, discussion 928-9. PMID 10724251.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. Sarwer DB,; et al. (2003). "Body image concerns of breast augmentation patients". Plast Reconstr Surg. (July): 83–90. PMID 12832880. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  6. Young VL; et al. (1994). "The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects". Plast Reconstr Surg. (Dec): 958–69. PMID 7972484. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  7. Cash TF; et al. (2002). "Women's psychosocial outcomes of breast augmentation with silicone gel-filled implants: a 2-year prospective study". Plast Reconstr Surg. (May): 2112–21. PMID 11994621. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  8. Chahraoui K,; et al. (2006). "Aesthetic surgery and quality of life before and four months postoperatively". J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants: 207–210. PMID 16181718. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  9. ^ Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Murray MC, Colton T, Hoover RN (2006). "Mortality rates among augmentation mammoplasty patients: an update". Epidemiology. 17 (2): 162–9. PMID 16477256.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. Arion HG (1965). "Retromammary prosthesis". C R Soc Fr Gynecol. 5.
  11. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series 1963;66:41.
  12. Luu HM, Hutter JC, Bushar HF (1998). "A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for 2,4-toluenediamine leached from polyurethane foam-covered breast implants". Environ Health Perspect. 106 (7): 393–400. PMID 9637796 Full text.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. Hester TR Jr, Tebbetts JB, Maxwell GP (2001). "The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: facts and fiction (II): a look back and a "peek" ahead". Clin Plast Surg. 28 (3): 579–86. PMID 11471963.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005). "Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery". Plast Reconstr Surg. 116 (3): 768–79, discussion 780-1. PMID 16141814.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. Fruhstorfer BH, Hodgson EL, Malata CM (2004). "Early experience with an anatomical soft cohesive silicone gel prosthesis in cosmetic and reconstructive breast implant surgery". Ann Plast Surg. 53 (6): 536–42. PMID 15602249.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M (2001). "Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world's largest current experience". Clin Plast Surg. 28 (3): 531–52. PMID 11471959.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA, Soo MS, Pennello G (2000). "Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama". AJR Am J Roentgenol. 175 (4): 1057–64. PMID 11000165.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K, Breiting VB, Jorgensen A, Krag C, McLaughlin JK (2005). "The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging". Ann Plast Surg. 54 (6): 583–9. PMID 15900139.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. Holmich LR; et al. (2003). "Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture". Arch Surg. 138 (7): 801–6. PMID 12860765. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  20. Heden P; et al. (2006). "Prevalence of rupture in inamed silicone breast implants". Plast Reconstr Surg. 118 (2): 303–8. PMID 16874191. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  21. Katzin, William E, Ceneno, Jose A, Feng, Lu-Jean; et al. (2001). "Pathology of Lymph Nodes From Patients With Breast Implants: A Histologic and Spectroscopic Evaluation". American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 29 (4): 506–511. . {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. Holmich LR ; et al. (2004). "Untreated silicone breast implant rupture". Plast Reconstr Surg. 114 (1): 204–14. PMID 15220594. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  23. Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, Soo MS, Middleton MS (2001). "Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women". J Rheumatol. 28 (5): 996–1003. PMID 11361228 FDA Summary.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. Barnsley GP (2006). "Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials". Plast Reconstr Surg. 117 (7): 2182–90. PMID 16772915. ]}}
  25. Vasey FB, Zarabadi SA, Seleznick M, Ricca L (2003). "Where there's smoke there's fire: the silicone breast implant controversy continues to flicker: a new disease that needs to be defined". J Rheumatol. 30 (10): 2092–4. PMID 14528500.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. Zuckerman D (2006). "Breast Implants: Making an Informed Decision". Johns Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine. 6 (9): 547–9. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  27. Breiting VB, Holmich LR, Brandt B (2004). "Long-term health status of Danish women with silicone breast implants". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 114: 217–226. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. Villenueve PJ; et al. (2006). "Mortality among Canadian Women with Cosmetic Breast Implants". Am J Epidemiol. PMID 16777929. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  29. Arepelli S; et al. (2002). "Allergic reactions to platinum in silicone breast implants". J Long-Term Effects Medical Implants: 299–306. PMID 12627791. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  30. Lykissa E.D. and Maharaj S.V.M. (2006). "Total Platinum Concentration and Platinum Oxidation States in Body Fluids, Tissue, and Explants from Women Exposed to Silicone and Saline Breast Implants by IC-ICPMS". Anal. Chem. (due publication May 2006). Retrieved 2006-04-06 (Web). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  31. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Cutter G, Barlow WE, Rosenberg R, Weaver DL, Taplin SH, Ballard-Barbash R, Carney PA, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K (2004). "Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics". JAMA: 442–50. PMID 14747501.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. Handel, N., Silverstein, M. J., Gamagami, P., Jensen, J. A., and Collins, A. (1992). "actors affecting mammographic visualization of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty". JAMA: 1913–17. PMID 1404718.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. Clark CP 3rd, Peters GN, O'Brien KM. (1993). "Cancer in the augmented breast. Diagnosis and prognosis". Cancer: 2170–4. PMID 8374874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  34. Le GM, O'Malley CD, Glaser SL, Lynch CF, Stanford JL, Keegan TH, West DW. (2005). "Breast implants following mastectomy in women with early-stage breast cancer: prevalence and impact on survival". Breast Cancer Res.: R184-93. PMID 15743498.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. Gray RJ, Forstner-Barthell AW, Pockaj BA, Schild SE, Halyard MY (2004). "Breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy are feasible in cancer patients with previous implant breast augmentation". American Journal of Surgery: 122–5. PMID 15249236.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. Schwartz GF; et al. (2006). "Consensus Conference on Breast Conservation". JACAS: 198–207. PMID 16864033. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  37. Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR; et al. (2005). "Reconstructive breast implantation after mastectomy for breast cancer: clinical outcomes in a nationwide prospective cohort study". Arch Surg. 140: 1152–9. PMID 16365235. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

External links

Silicone Breast Implants

Categories: