Demonstration of silicone in situ of connective-tissue disease in patients with silicone-gel breast implants

1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (7) ◽  
pp. 1106
Author(s):  
Rony Moscona
1998 ◽  
Vol 101 (7) ◽  
pp. 1836-1841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Weinzweig ◽  
Paul L. Schnur ◽  
Joseph P. McConnell ◽  
John B. Harris ◽  
Paul M. Petty ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Peters

There are currently three main areas of concern regarding the safety of silicone gel implants: implant failure; a potential link to autoimmune connective tissue disease; and a possible link to breast cancer. All silicone gel implants ‘bleed’ small levels of silicone. In addition, silicone gel implants appear to fail (leak or rupture) with time. Most implants in place for less than seven years appear to be intact. It appears that many silicone gel implants implanted for over seven years are probably ruptured or leaking. Implant failure may occur simply from deterioration. Implants can also rupture following closed capsulotomy. Mammography and ultrasound studies are generally not helpful in predicting implant failure. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies appear to be useful, but the ‘breast coil’ necessary to perform these studies is not currently available in most MRI units in Canada. The significance of implant failure is not known. There is a growing (but unproven) concern that immunological sensitization to silicone could develop in women with silicone gel implants. An extensive review of all clinical and immunological studies in the current literature has failed to demonstrate any conclusive link between silicone gel implants (whether intact or nonintact) and the development of autoimmune connective tissue disease or other disease process. However, large scale epidemiological studies remain to be done. Several large studies have proven that there is no relationship between silicone gel implants and the development of breast cancer.


1998 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 596
Author(s):  
O Nyren ◽  
L Yin ◽  
S Jesefsson

1996 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Peters ◽  
Dennis Smith ◽  
Stanley Lugowski

There have been three generations of silicone-gel breast implants. First generation implants (thick wall – thick gel with Dacron patches) were made from 1963 to 1972. Second generation implants (thin wall-thin gel) were made from 1972 until the mid 1980s. The introduction of third generation implants (stronger wall, low-bleed) was geographically dependent. In Canada, Dow Corning Silastic II implants were introduced in 1986, and Surgitek SCL implants were introduced in 1988. In the present study, a total of 352 silicone-gel breast implants were removed from 239 patients between 1981 and 1995. Their failure properties were dependent upon their generation (year of manufacture) and, for second generation implants, their duration in situ. Of the 352 implants, 20 were first generation, and all were fully intact. Twenty-eight were third generation implants, and 27 were fully intact. Failure properties of the 302 second generation implants were dependent upon their duration of implantation. A survival curve indicated that these implants began to fail (by leaking or rupturing) after four years in situ. By six years, 40% had failed. After 12 years, 95% had failed. Of the 171 second generation implants removed between 1991 and 1995, 77% had failed. The failure properties were similar for the three main manufacturers: Dow Corning, Heyer-Schulte and Surgitek. The failure rate for second generation implants is much higher than was previously believed. This is particularly significant in view of the current difficulty in diagnosing implant failure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document