Silicone breast implants and autoimmune connective tissue disease

A Review of the Literature on the Management of Silicone Implant Incompatibility Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Silicone implant breast augmentation has been routinely performed since the 1960s. Emerging literature suggests the existence of a clinical syndrome, silicone implant incompatibility syndrome (SIIS) resulting from silicone implants. Autoimmune reactivity develops, with subsequent symptoms including myalgias, arthralgias, chronic fatigue, sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment. While the existence of a clinical entity is currently being established in the literature, there are currently no guidelines on management.

METHOD

Literature review was conducted using Medline and PubMed databases with key terms searched for, prior to hand-searching and bibliographical review until February 2019. The relevant literature was reviewed to determine whether consensus exists on the most appropriate management strategy.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles relevant to SIIS were identified with twenty-one of these specifically outlining treatment. Of these, only five provided data on larger cohorts, three provided conclusions from literature reviews, and the remainder were small case series or isolated case reports. Improvement in symptoms was obtained by medical management of their immune response, by explantation and by simply counselling on the condition itself.

CONCLUSIONS

A new clinical condition is being described that appears to suggest a link between silicone implant use and various symptoms in a cohort of patients. The subsequent treatment of SIIS is yet to be agreed upon. Further research is required to establish guidelines for diagnosis and ensure evidence-based treatment, and that patients and clinicians have a more refined understanding of the potential risks of silicone breast implant use.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The association between silicone implants and both antibodies and autoimmune diseases

Silicones are widely used materials in many fields of medicine and largely are believed to be biologically inert. However, some investigators have reported that silicone implants are associated with an increased incidence of autoimmune disorders. In this study, we evaluated the capsular tissue of silicone implants and the sera of implant patients and controls for antisilicone antibodies and nonspecific immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA, IgM, and IgE). Our study group included 15 patients (eight men and seven women) undergoing reconstructive procedures for burn scars, in whom we used silicone implants, and 15 sex-matched controls undergoing reconstructive surgery for burn scars without using silicone implants. By immunofluorescence, we discovered strong capsular binding of IgG and weak capsular binding of IgM; antisilicone antibody levels were significantly higher in capsular tissue than elsewhere. Serum IgE also was higher in patient vs control subject sera. In conclusion, silicone materials do lead to an immune response consisting of antisilicone antibodies most evident immediately adjacent to the implant itself.

Induction of CD69 antigen expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells on exposure to silica, but not by asbestos/chrysotile-A

While cases of silicosis are often complicated by various autoimmune disorders, patients with asbestosis develop malignant tumors such as lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. These differences may derive from different biological effects, particularly on immunological cells, of silica and asbestos. To find differences between silica and asbestos, the early activation antigen, CD69, on T cells was examined because dysregulated and continuous activation of T cells may promote the survival of self-recognizing T cells. After cultivation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with or without silica or chrysotile-A, an asbestos, only silica induced CD69 expression on the lymphocytes. This induction of CD69 expression was mediated by protein kinase C activation. In addition, cell-cell contact mediated by HLA-DR was more important than soluble factors secreted from silica-phagocytosed cells such as IL-1beta, IL-6, and IL-8, even though IL-6 and IL-8 were produced during the culture of PBMCs with silica and chrysotile-A. It should be examined how these activated, CD69-expressing lymphocytes affect other immune systems as well as alter themselves in terms of cytokine production and cell-cell interaction, leading to autoimmune disorders in silicosis patients.

Breast reconstruction using a deepithelialized rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap

There are many methods for breast reconstruction. Using implants can achieve good results without conspicuous scarring, but this method has disadvantages, such as infection, exposure, and capsular contracture. The rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (RAM) flap has become a standard technique because of its safety and abundant volume, but its main problem is the lack of a color and texture match between the skin paddle and the skin around the flap. To overcome such shortcomings, the authors perform breast reconstruction using tissue expansion and a RAM flap. First a tissue expander is inserted superficially to the pectoralis major muscle at the time of or after mastectomy, and is expanded to a size larger than the contralateral breast. The expander is replaced with the deepithelialized RAM flap. Scar revision is performed if the expander is inflated satisfactorily. The authors used this technique in 11 patients and obtained good results without severe complications.

Histologic findings of silastic medialization in the canine model

OBJECTIVES

Examine the long-term histological effects of Silastic medialization using a canine model.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study evaluating the effects of Silastic medialization in six canine larynges.

METHODS

Two subject groups were evaluated. The first group of four dogs underwent recurrent laryngeal section followed by Silastic medialization on the paralyzed side and placement of a smaller implant on the mobile side. Two of the dogs were sacrificed at 9 months and two at 2 years. The second subject group consisted of two additional dogs who underwent Silastic medialization followed by removal of the implants at 7 months and were sacrificed 18 months later. The larynges were then processed, sectioned in the axial plane, and examined microscopically.

RESULTS

Histological findings of both the mobile and paralyzed sides showed a thin (< 0.5 mm) fibrous capsule surrounding the implant and minimal inflammatory response. Vocal fold mobility was maintained in all cases in which the recurrent laryngeal nerve was left intact. Capsule formation and inflammatory response were similar in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal tissue reactivity over a prolonged period of time suggests that long-term results of Silastic medialization remain stable in paralyzed and mobile vocal folds for up to 2 years. Similar tissue response in the subjects in which the Silastic block was removed also suggests that Silastic medialization is a reversible procedure.

Lipid infiltration as a possible biologic cause of silicone gel breast implant aging

The cause of silicone gel implant aging and rupture is not known. Recent reports indicate the failure rate is higher than previously published, and implant aging and rupture may be due to progressive mechanical deterioration of the outer vulcanized silicone shell. It is known that lipids are absorbed by the hydrophobic silicone elastomer, and lipid infiltration causes mechanical attenuation and possible failure of the elastomer. The purposes of this article are to analyze the silicone envelope/gel of explanted prostheses and the silicone elastomer of other medical grade silicone devices for lipid content and to suggest its possible role in implant aging and rupture. We assayed 33 ruptured silicone breast implant shells (mean age 13.1 years; range 8 to 26 years) and 8 medical grade silicone elastomer devices (mean age 3.7 years; range 3 months to 12 years) for evidence of lipid infiltration using thin layer chromatography. These were compared with control group assays from two nonimplanted silicone gel implants and one unused Silastic catheter. Ninety-eight percent of implants and other previously implanted silicone devices were found to have evidence of lipid infiltration compared with none in nonimplanted controls (p < 0.005). We conclude that lipids infiltrate the outer silicone shell and may be a factor related to breast implant aging and rupture due to progressive mechanical weakening of the outer silicone shell.

Aesthetic outcome of breast implant removal in 85 consecutive patients

As we began to see increasing numbers of women concerned about their gel-filled breast implants, we became aware that we could not advise them with any degree of confidence what they might expect in terms of aesthetic result after implant removal. We decided to review the records and outcomes over a 2-year period of a number of patients who underwent implant removal. Eighty-five consecutive patients were reviewed, 69 of whom had undergone cosmetic augmentation and 16 of whom had breast reconstruction with silicone gel implant(s). Thirty-nine of the 69 cosmetic augmentation patients had removal of implants alone, and 27 had removal accompanied by mastopexy. Three had reaugmentation with saline-filled implants; one had replacement with saline-filled implants. Fifteen of the 16 reconstruction patients underwent autogenous tissue transfer. Preoperative and postoperative photographs of all patients were mixed randomly and rated by two independent raters in four aesthetic categories on a five-point scoring system. Repeatability was measured several weeks later, when each rater scored randomly selected photographs from this patient pool. The patients also performed their own outcome evaluations by means of questionnaire. We discovered that cosmetic augmentation patients who undergo implant removal only often suffer adverse aesthetic results. The postremoval appearance of many cosmetic augmentation patients actually will be improved over their preoperative appearance when mastopexy is performed in conjunction with implant removal. The study demonstrated that patients with certain body types could expect a particular outcome; i.e., women with asthenic builds and older patients with lax, striated breast skin generally had unsatisfactory aesthetic outcomes with implant removal only. Patients selected for autogenous breast reconstruction had favorable results, with extended latissimus dorsi and TRAM flaps yielding equally good outcomes. The study allows us to offer patients an optimistic view of postoperative results following breast implant removal. We have begun to advise selected patients that implant removal accompanied by mastopexy provides a more pleasing aesthetic outcome than implant removal alone.

Silicone breast implants: pathology

Questions as to the bioreactivity of silicone breast implants (SBIs) have recently been intensely scrutinized, most notably by the media and legal system. Pathologists must be aware of the controversy and treat each SBI and associated tissue as a potential lawsuit. Grossly, silicone is a clear, viscous substance that may be observed either within or extruding from a silastic bag. By light microscopy, silicone is a nonstainable, nonpolarizable, refractile substance. Thicker sections, especially when viewed by non-Köhler illumination, phase-contrast, and darkfield microscopy will enhance visualization. Ultrastructurally, silicone is an electron-dense, amorphous substance often located within phagocytic vacuoles or extracellularly within the stroma. Correlating electron probe microanalysis allows for reliable identification. In most cases, a fibrous capsule surrounds the SBI, with the interface lining varying from a virtually acellular to a synovial-like lining composed of phagocytic and secretory cells. Silicone can often be identified within the fibrous capsule and also in distant tissues biopsied for suspected autoimmune disorders, such as synovium, skin, and lymph nodes, often without ultrastructural evidence of cytologic effects. This study has demonstrated that silicone accumulates at distant tissue sites due to preexisting inflammation acting as a stimulus. Thus, silicone is not a primary inducer of inflammatory disease processes. These findings are supported by various large epidemiologic studies.

A review of the possible health implications of silicone breast implants

BACKGROUND

The silicone gel breast implant has long been an important method of reconstruction for the mastectomy patient. Because of concerns about possible health implications of the implant, the Food and Drug Administration banned its use for augmentation mammaplasty and limited its use in the mastectomy patient to a research protocol study. This article reviews the recent literature about the possible health hazards of the silicone implant.

METHODS

In this review of the literature, specific attention was directed toward structural failure of the device as well as the diagnosis of rupture, tissue response to silicone, systemic immunologic response to silicone, the relationship of silicone to connective tissue diseases, and the association of the silicone implant with breast carcinoma in both the augmentation mammaplasty patient and the patient undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction. A total of 88 works were reviewed.

RESULTS

The literature fails to support an association between silicone gel breast implants and systemic diseases. Although implants may cause local symptoms, rupture over time, or be associated with an immunologic reaction, comprehensive epidemiologic studies have concluded that there is no connection between breast implants and the known connective tissue diseases or between the implants and breast carcinoma. There is no increase in the risk of recurrence in mastectomy patients reconstructed with implants and no delay in the detection of recurrences. Recent laboratory studies in animals suggest that silicone may have anticarcinogenic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Silicone gel breast implants may rupture and cause local symptoms, but they have not been demonstrated to be a systemic health hazard for patients who have undergone augmentation mammaplasty or postmastectomy reconstruction.