An extended 7-year review of textured breast implants for primary breast augmentation: Allergan® versus Mentor®

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
erena V. Martin ◽  
Weiguang Ho ◽  
Khalid Khan
2002 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 223-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Peters

The present review traces the evolution of breast implants over the past 50 years. During the early years (from 1951 to 1962), a number of different sponges were used for breast augmentation. The first of these was Ivalon, a polyvinyl alcohol sponge. Other sponges were introduced subsequently, including Etheron (a poly-ether sponge popularized by Dr Paule Regnault in Montreal) and Polystan (fabric tapes that were wound into a ball). Subsequently, polyethylene strips enclosed in a fabric or polyethylene casing were also used for breast augmentation. All of these materials had similar outcomes. Although the initial results were encouraging, within one year of augmentation, breasts became very firm and lost over 25% of their volume. This was due to capsular contracture, a process that would lead to the collapse of the sponge and would continue to plague plastic surgeons and their patients for the next 50 years. In 1963, Cronin and Gerow introduced the silicone gel ‘natural feel’ implant, which revolutionized breast augmentation surgery. Approximately 10 companies have manufactured many types of silicone gel breast implants over the years. They obtained their raw materials for gels and shells from a similar number of other companies that entered and left the market at intervals. Many of the suppliers and manufactures changed their names and ownership over the years, and most of the companies no longer exist. No formal process of United States Food and Drug Administration premarket testing was in effect until 1988. There have been three generations of gel implants and a number of other lesser variations. First-generation implants (1963 to 1972) had a thick gel and a thick wall. They have generally remained intact over the years. Second-generation implants (1973 to the mid-1980s) had a thin gel and a thin wall. They have tended to disrupt over time. Third-generation implants (mid-1980s to 1992) had a thick wall and a thick gel. Except for those made by Surgitek, these implants remain intact. The breast implant business was competitive and companies introduced changes such as softer gels; barrier low-bleed shells; greater or lesser shell thickness; surface texturing; different sizes, contours and shapes; and multiple lumens in search of better aesthetics. Ultimately, more than 240 styles and 8300 models of silicone gel breast implants were manufactured in the United States alone. Inflatable breast implants were introduced in Toulons, France in 1965 (the Simaplast implant). There have been three main eras of inflatable implants: seamed, high-temperature vulcanized and room temperature vulcanized implants. In 1973, spontaneous deflation rates of 76% to 88% over three years were reported for many types of inflatable implants. Because of this, most plastic surgeons abandoned their use. From 1963 until the moratorium on gel implants (January 6, 1992), about 95% of all breast implants inserted were silicone gel filled. Only 5% were saline filled. Since the moratorium, this ratio has been reversed and 95% of all implants have been saline-filled, with only 5% being gel filled. Polyurethane-coated (PU) silicone gel implants were introduced in 1968. Over the next 20 years, they were shown to reduce the prevalence of capsular contracture to 2% to 3%. Other forms of surface texturing (Biocell, Siltex, multistructured implant) also appear to reduce capsular contracture with gel implants, but the reduction has been much less dramatic than that seen with PU implants. Contoured (anatomical) shaping appears to have advantages in some patients with gel implants. No such advantage has been seen for texturing or shaping with saline-filled implants. The story of gel implants has culminated in the largest class action lawsuit in medical history, with US$4.2 billion being awarded to women with silicone gel implants. During the past decade, there has been a tremendous amount of research on the reaction of a woman's body to gel implants. A plethora of studies have demonstrated that silicone gel implants are not associated with the development of any medical diseases. Silicone gel-filled implants have therefore been approved for use under Health Canada's Special Access Program. Silicone gel-filled implants may now be used in certain patients in whom they would provide advantages over saline implants. Silicone gel implants have not been approved for unrestricted general use. The evolution of breast implants occupies the past half century. It has been a stormy course, with many exciting advances and many bitter disappointments. The universe of breast implants is large and the variation among the implants is substantial. The purpose of the present review is to trace the evolution of breast implants over the past 50 years.


1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard A. Tobin ◽  
George T. Goffas

Inferior displacement of breast implants is a relatively common complication of breast augmentation. The authors describe the use of GoreTex® in the repair of a case that failed after a previous attempt at correction. Possible mechanisms that might lead to this complication are reviewed along with a discussion of the anatomy of the region of the inframammary fold


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Catherine Watson Genna

Breast surgery increases the risk for difficulties with milk production and breastfeeding. Research on lactation outcomes of breast augmentation with implants is reassuring, but reveals a significant risk of low milk production that varies with the type of surgery and position of the implants. Understanding the potential effects of breast implants on breastfeeding can help lactation professionals optimize outcomes for families with a history of augmentation mammaplasty.


1997 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Peters

From 1992 to 1996, 189 saline breast implants were inserted into patients (54 for breast augmentation and 135 for replacement of explanted silicone gel implants). Nine implants (4.8%) underwent spontaneous deflation at a mean of 2.8 months postoperation (range, 0.5 to nine months). Six deflations were partial (10% to 50% of implant volume), and three were complete. All failed implants were from the same manufacturer and had the same leaf valves. None of the failed implants demonstrated any visible defects in their walls or valve mechanisms when examined in the operating room. However, subsequent analyses indicated that all failed implants demonstrated a slow leak through the leaf valve mechanism – as slow as two to three drops per 12 h. This rate increased significantly when pressure was applied to the implant. In the three implants with delayed leakage (six to 10 months), fibrous tissue was observed in the leaf valve mechanism of the implants. It is postulated that failure of all nine implants resulted because of defects in their valves and that fibrous tissue ingrowth into the leaf catheter valve mechanism may have played a role in at least three. The tissue may have provided a ‘wick’ to stimulate fluid leakage. The use of these leaf valve implants was discontinued one year ago. Since then, no failures have been observed in any of the 68 diaphragm valve implants that have been inserted during the past year.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146
Author(s):  
Viktoriia Dzhuganova ◽  
Valery V. NOVOMLINSKY ◽  
Andrey Petrovich Sokolov ◽  
Pavel Alekseevich Lynov ◽  
Margarita Gennedievna Sokolova ◽  
...  

Introduction. Fibroadenomas (FA) are the most common benign breast neoplasms that are diagnosed in 25% of women. Dissatisfaction with the size of the breast and the desire to increase it occurs in 40%. For this reason, in the practice of a plastic surgeon, there are cases when the patient wants to remove fibroadenomas (FA) and increase the size of the breast. In this situation, there are two options for managing the patient- the simultaneous execution of two operations and the delayed one.Aim. To evaluate the possibility of simultaneous FA removal and augmentation mammoplasty, to analyze possible complications and methods of their correction.Materials and methods. We have analyzed the experience of simultaneous interventions of FA removal and augmentation mammoplasty on the example of 10 cases performed in the period from 2014-2019, as well as FA removal after implant placement-3 cases.Results. Performing a simultaneous operation has advantages due to the minimization of injuries (the ability to perform from a single access - submammary or periareolar), reducing psychological stress and better cosmetic effect. Two patients had postoperative complications in the form of capsular contracture, manifested in the asymmetry of the mammary glands, corrected by performing capsulotomy and forming a new submammary fold. When performing invasive diagnostic tests and surgical intervention in three patients after endoprosthesis augmentation mammoplasty, extreme caution was required due to the risk of violating the integrity of the implant. It was found that the incision of the posterior leaf of the MJ capsule with a large number of removed neoplasms in the postoperative period leads to the development of breast asymmetry. The fact of FA recurrence was also confirmed (2 patients), who subsequently underwent repeated surgical intervention.Conclusion. Performing simultaneous operations for benign breast tumors can be surely practiced by plastic surgeons, including as one of the options for simultaneous treatment of breast FA and augmentation mammoplasty. The occurrence of FA in the long-term period after breast augmentation surgery is associated with difficulties in diagnostics (mammography and fine needle aspiration biopsy under the control of ultrasound), as well as in the course of surgery itself, due to the presence of the implant and the risk of violation of its integrity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2513826X1982879
Author(s):  
Miguel Sabino Neto ◽  
Luiz Henrique Gebrim

An increased incidence of breast cancer has been observed in women, including in those with silicone breast implants. We describe here the use of a flap made of fibrous capsule to complete the coverage of breast implants in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, who previously had undergone breast augmentation with silicone implants. All patients underwent ipsilateral therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer risk reduction and breast symmetrization. The capsular flap was successfully used in 16 patients. No postoperative complications occurred. This is a simple and safe technique and an additional option for this procedure.


Author(s):  
William B. Greene ◽  
Lyle G. Walsh ◽  
Richard M. Silver ◽  
Joann Allen ◽  
John C. Maize

Electron probe microanalysis of biopsies from two patients who had received silicone gel breast implants has revealed silicon (Si) in macrophages in an arthritic finger joint synovium (Fig. 1) and in a sclerodermatous skin lesion as well as in the fibrous capsule surrounding the implants in both patients (Fig. 2). The silastic envelope has been reported to be semipermeable with substances passing freely into and out of the implant. The polymer usually contains silica filler with a particle size of 30μm to impart added firmness, however, these sharp pointed crystals have not been fully characterized by Electron Microscopy. Silicone has been thought to be relatively inert, eliciting little or no tissue reaction. The substance has been injected or surgically placed into the human body as liquid, joints or in the form of breast augmentation prostheses. Recent reports have indicated that there is more than sufficient reason to change our thinking regarding this chemical and it's significance in biological reactions. There are 100,000 patients who undergo breast augmentation each year in the United States alone with over one million reported silicone implants. One clinical group reported that 4.4% of all new scleroderma patients had silicone breast implants. The patients reported in the study had implants from 2 to 21 years duration. The latency period may mean that scleroderma will increase parallel to the increase in breast augmentation over the last decade.


Author(s):  
Yukun Gao ◽  
E Jane Karimova ◽  
Jordana Phillips ◽  
Valerie Fein-Zachary ◽  
Vandana Dialani ◽  
...  

Abstract In the United States, silicone and saline breast implants with their familiar radiologic appearance are the mainstays of breast augmentation. However, less well-known sequelae of unconventional injected materials introduced for cosmetic and noncosmetic purposes may also be encountered on breast imaging—for example, free silicone, paraffin and/or oil, polyacrylamide gel, autologous fat, and hyaluronic acid, which are encountered in the setting of breast augmentation. Breast injection of go-yak is not cosmetic but also results in characteristic imaging findings. Breast changes due to extravasation of chemotherapy or interstitial brachytherapy can mimic the appearance of injected noncosmetic materials. Because many of these materials can mimic or obscure imaging findings of breast cancer, it is important to recognize their varied appearances and the limitations of imaging alone in delineating breast injection material from cancer. Given the relatively uncommon incidence of injected materials into the breast, this article aims to review the imaging appearance in order to aid radiologists in maximizing cancer detection and ensuring optimal patient management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document