Breast Implant Rupture: Causes, Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

Extracapsular breast implant rupture with silicone migration and lymphadenopathy following a breast augmentation - A case report

Silicone lymphadenopathy and granuloma formation can result from breast implants. A 71-year-old presented with implant rupture 30 years after a breast augmentation, causing left-sided silicone lymphadenopathy and extensive migration to the breast parenchyma and skin. Management included a mastectomy, lymph node resection, implant removal with complete intact capsulectomy, and latissimus-dorsi-based reconstruction.

Rupture of Breast Implants Does Not Cause Systemic or Local Immune Changes

Breast implant rupture occurs in both saline and silicone implants, with estimated risk of rupture between 5.3% and 15.1% over a 10-year period. Concerns regarding the effect of breast implants on the immune system remain despite currently published data that does not support a link between implants, ruptured or not, and autoimmune symptoms. The authors aimed to determine if there were systemic or local immune changes caused by implant rupture. Healthy females with either ruptured or intact breast implants were recruited. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed to examine systemic levels of 6 antibodies against breast-related antigens. Bulk RNA-sequencing of breast tissue adjacent to the implant was analyzed to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Sixty-seven females were assessed with ELISA. Of those, 24% (16/67) had ruptured breast implants and 76% (51/67) had intact implants. There were no differences in antibody levels between intact and ruptured implants. Subgroup analyses of ruptured implants revealed no differences in antibody levels between ruptured saline and silicone implants, submuscular and subglandular implants, or textured and smooth implants. Bulk RNA-sequencing of breast tissue adjacent to ruptured implants (n = 5) and intact implants (n = 5) was performed. This revealed only 1 immune-related DEG (MS4A1), which was a downregulated gene related to B cell activation and differentiation. Rupture of breast implants was not associated with systemic changes in antibody levels or local changes in gene expression of breast parenchyma. There was no evidence for immune-related changes that might explain the autoimmune-like clinical symptoms some patients experience after implant rupture. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic).

Evaluating Breast Implant Screening Guidelines in Breast Cancer Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration updated its surveillance recommendations for breast implant rupture to ultrasound screening or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 5-6 years following silicone implant placement, with repeat screening every 2-3 years thereafter. This study evaluates the risk of implant rupture and assesses the utility of routine surveillance MRIs in diagnosing implant rupture.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with implant-based reconstruction for breast cancer with a single surgeon between 2012 and 2017. Inclusion criteria included a 5-year minimum follow-up period. Analysis was performed to elucidate rupture rate and associated factors.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients underwent reconstruction with saline (13%) and silicone implants (87%). Seventy-five (20%) underwent routine MRI screening within 5-6 years of surgery. Implant rupture occurred in 26 patients (7%). Average time from implant placement to rupture was 5.9 ± 4.0 years. Fifty-nine percent of silicone implant ruptures were diagnosed by MRI screening. Thirty-eight percent of silicone implant ruptures presented without clinical symptoms and were identified on routine MRI screening. All saline implant ruptures presented with clinical symptoms. On imaging, ruptures were classified as intracapsular (81%) or extracapsular (12%). Seventy-three percent of ruptures were confirmed intraoperatively during implant replacement. Median time for rupture diagnosis to implant removal/replacement was 3 months (range, 0.5-21 months).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI screening for silicone implant rupture in implant-based breast reconstruction had a 59% detection rate, with relatively low patient adherence (20% within 5-6 years after surgery), highlighting the challenges of screening. Patients should be counseled on the risk of implant rupture and the likelihood of needing replacement during their lifetime.

Practical Method for the Removal of Silicone Breast Implants

Silicone breast implants are widely used in both cosmetic and reconstructive breast operations worldwide. Although there are numerous devices designed to assist with the placement of implants, there are limited tools available for their removal. The challenge is amplified when complications such as implant rupture occur, increasing the risk of silicone contamination in surrounding tissues. Historically, improvised solutions-such as repurposed syringes and saline bottles on suction tubing-have been used to assist with implant explantation. However, these makeshift tools were often too small to accommodate the full volume of the implant. Furthermore, recent updates to Australian hospital sterilization standards have imposed additional restrictions on the autoclaving of such improvised devices, underscoring the need for a cost-effective, compliant alternative. Despite new commercially available devices becoming available on the market, they may be inaccessible due to budget limitations, low stock, or unavailability in certain countries. This article describes a customizable extraction technique using a readily available, low-cost, autoclavable device for the sterile removal of ruptured silicone implants. The device features a large diameter opening, which allows for the easy extraction of both ruptured and intact implants. With a collection capacity of up to 1 L, it meets the necessary volume requirements for most procedures. Additionally, it can be assembled in under 3 minutes using standard equipment found in operating rooms and adheres to updated sterilization protocols.

Navigating challenges of breast implant rupture in a rugby player: Challenges and risk assessment

Sports physicians need to be aware of potential complications related to breast implants in athletes. Problems with breast implants can affect an athlete's physical health, overall mental well-being and performance. This case report explores the challenges sports physicians face in diagnosing and managing breast implant ruptures in athletes. It outlines the complexities of identifying ruptures, conducting appropriate screenings, and determining fitness to play following chest injuries sustained during sports. This publication also offers practical guidance on addressing these challenges and emphasises the importance of comprehensive evaluation, proactive screening, and a multidisciplinary approach to management.

Complications of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Implant Capsulectomy: An Analysis of 7486 Patients Using Nationwide Outcomes Data

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing demand for breast capsular surgery to treat various benign and malignant implant-related pathologies, high-quality evidence elucidating complication profiles of capsulectomy and capsulotomy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide the largest-scale analysis of associated outcomes and complications using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) database, and to investigate clinical scenarios that may subject patients to increased risks for complications, most notably extent of capsular surgery (complete vs partial) and index indication of implantation (aesthetic vs reconstructive).

METHODS

An analysis of the TOPS database from 2008 to 2019 was performed. CPT codes were used to identify complete capsulectomy and partial capsulectomy/capsulotomy cases. Breast implant exchange procedures constituted procedural controls.

RESULTS

In total, 7486 patients (10,703 breasts) undergoing capsulectomy or capsulotomy were assessed. Relative to controls, capsulectomy (4.40% vs 5.79%), but not capsulotomy (4.40% vs 4.50%), demonstrated higher overall complication rates. Both capsulectomies (0.83% vs 0.23%) and capsulotomies (0.56% vs 0.23%) also had greater rates of seroma relative to controls. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that reconstructive patients, relative to aesthetic patients, experienced greater overall complications (6.76% vs 4.34%), and increased risks for seroma (1.06% vs 0.47%), dehiscence (0.46% vs 0.14%), surgical site infections (1.03% vs 0.23%), and implant loss (0.52% vs 0.23%). A detailed synthesis of 30-day outcomes, including all patient- and breast-specific complications, for both capsulectomy and capsulotomy, stratified according to all potential confounders, is presented herein.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeries on the breast capsule are safe overall, although complete capsulectomies and reconstructive patients are associated with significantly increased operative risks. The present findings will enhance patient selection, counseling, and informed consent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

The Spectrum of Non-neoplastic Changes Associated With Breast Implants: Histopathology, Imaging, and Clinical Significance

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has been recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. These neoplasms are causally related to textured implants that were used worldwide until recently. Consequently, there is an increased demand for processing periprosthetic capsules, adding new challenges for surgeons, clinicians, and pathologists. In the literature, the focus has been on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma; however, benign complications related to the placement of breast implants occur in up to 20% to 30% of patients. Imaging studies are helpful in assessing patients with breast implants for evidence of implant rupture, changes in tissues surrounding the implants, or regional lymphadenopathy related to breast implants, but pathologic examination is often required. In this review, we couple our experience with a review of the literature to describe a range of benign lesions associated with breast implants that can be associated with different clinical presentations or pathogenesis and that may require different diagnostic approaches. We illustrate the spectrum of the most common of these benign disorders, highlighting their clinical, imaging, gross, and microscopic features. Finally, we propose a systematic approach for the diagnosis and handling of breast implant specimens in general.

A case of extracapsular silicone gel implant rupture with contralateral gel migration

Symmastia is a rare complication of augmentation mammaplasty that occurs when a breast implant crosses the midline and connects with the contralateral implant pocket. We present a case of implant rupture, migration to the contralateral breast, and ultimate symmastia following a traumatic fall in a patient with prior breast augmentation.

Twelve Years and over 2400 Implants Later: Augmentation Mammoplasty Risk Factors Based on a Single Plastic Surgeon's Experience

Background

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic surgery procedures. Yet, few reports in the literature analyze individual surgeon experiences with a unified surgical method on a large group of patients. This study aimed to analyze a single surgeon's complications rate and experience with the Akademikliniken augmentation mammaplasty method from the beginning of his career.

Methods

A retrospective outcome analysis of all patients (n = 1646) who underwent breast augmentation between 2009 and 2021 performed by a single surgeon was conducted. Complications and reoperation rates were evaluated. In addition, correlations with the patient and implant characteristics and insertion-method-related risk factors were analyzed.

Results

In total, 1212 female patients (mean age, 31.47 years) were analyzed. The minimal follow-up for every patient was 6 months (mean follow-up, 18.35 months). The total complication rate was 7.1%, and the most common complication (2.64%) was capsular contracture (Baker scale III/IV). Implant insertion with a funnel significantly lowered the overall risk of complications (P = 0.009). Statistical analysis indicates that the single independent risk factors for primary breast augmentation are patient age younger than 27 years, initial breast size B and C, and tobacco smoking.

Conclusions

This study indicated that capsular contracture and implant rotation are the most common complications of analyzed primary augmentation mammoplasty. It also identifies various risk and protection factors, such as funnel usage, which should be considered by the surgeon when performing this type of procedure.

Exploration of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Silicone Breast Implant Rupture Detection and Classification

Background and Objectives: The surge in breast-related surgeries in Korea underscores the critical need for an accurate early diagnosis of silicone breast implant-related issues. Complications such as BIA-ALCL and BIA-SCC add complexity to breast health concerns, necessitating vigilant monitoring. Despite advancements, discrepancies persist between ultrasonographic and pathologic classifications of silicone implant ruptures, highlighting a need for enhanced diagnostic tools. This study explores the reliability of ultrasonography in diagnosing silicone breast implant ruptures and determining the extent of silicone migration, specifically with a focus on guiding potential capsulectomy based on pathology. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of medical records encompassing 5557 breast implants across 2790 patients who underwent ultrasound-assisted examinations was conducted. Among the screened implants, 8.9% (249 cases) were diagnosed with silicone breast implant rupture through ultrasonography. Subsequently, 89 women underwent revisional surgery, involving capsulectomy. The pathological analysis of 111 periprosthetic capsules from these cases aimed to assess the extent of silicone migration, and the findings were juxtaposed with the existing ultrasonographic rupture classification. Results: The diagnostic agreement between preoperative sonography and postoperative findings reached 100% for silicone breast implant ruptures. All eighty prosthetic capsules exhibiting a snowstorm sign in ultrasonography demonstrated silicone migration to capsules upon pathologic findings. Conclusions: High-resolution ultrasonography emerged as a valuable and reliable imaging modality for diagnosing silicone breast implant ruptures, with a notable ability to ascertain the extent of free silicone migration to capsules. This diagnostic precision is pivotal in informing decisions about potential capsulectomy during revisional surgery. The study advocates for an update to the current binary ultrasonographic classification, suggesting a more nuanced categorization into three types (subcapsular, intracapsular, and extracapsular) based on pathology.

An Innovative Surgical Device for Removal of Breast Implants

SUMMARY

The use of breast implants is consistently on the rise owing to increases in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Implant rupture is a potential complication, the rate of which has increased over time. Therefore, implant removal or replacement is a common procedure, and needed for most breast implants at some point during the patient's lifetime. Surgical removal of ruptured implants is messy, cumbersome, time-consuming, and, overall, unpleasant. The authors have developed a custom-made device that effectively removes a silicone implant, whether ruptured or intact. To determine its efficiency, the authors conducted a prospective clinical trial of 25 women (45 breasts) undergoing removal or replacement of breast implants with the device between January of 2019 and January of 2022. Device safety and efficiency were assessed, and the need for the device was evaluated through a survey among 25 board-certified plastic surgeons. The mean implant age was 12.8 years, and mean volume was 370 g. The mean time to extract the implant with the device was 10.7 seconds. Twenty-two implants (49%) were ruptured. There were no minor or major complications during the procedure or follow-up. The mean follow-up period was 6 months. Surgeons' intention to use this device in their own practices for removal of intact and ruptured implants was very high. This novel device may prove indispensable for explantation of both intact and ruptured silicone implants.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

The Incidence and Outcomes of Breast Implants Among 1696 Women over more than 50 Years

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of women with breast implants in 1964-2017 MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women with breast implants in Olmsted County, MN between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2017 were identified, and a comprehensive review of individual medical records was performed, adding to a previously identified cohort of women with breast implants in 1964-1991. Incidence rates were calculated and were age- and sex-adjusted to the US white female 2010 population.

RESULTS

In 1992-2017, 948 women with breast implants were identified, totaling 1696 Olmsted County, MN women with breast implants in 1964-2017. Overall incidence was 63.3 (95% CI 60.2-66.4) per 100,000 women, but incidence varied significantly over time. Women in 1964-1991 were more likely to have implants for cosmetic reasons and more likely to have silicone implants compared to the 1992-2017 cohort. The overall standardized mortality ratio was 1.17 (95% CI 0.99-1.38) in 1964-1991 and 0.94 (95% CI 0.66-1.29) in 1992-2017. In 1992-2017, breast reconstruction patients had a significantly elevated risk of implant rupture and implant removal versus breast augmentation patients.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of breast implants among women in Olmsted County, MN has varied drastically over the past five decades, with significant changes in the trends for implant type and reason. The findings of this study may provide further insight regarding how risks associated with implants may vary over time.

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 .

What Can We Learn from Breast Implant Explantation: a 28-Year, Multicenter Retrospective Study of 1004 Explantation Cases

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast augmentation remains popular, but the controversy over the safety and longevity of implants has continued. An event-based analysis of reasons for implant explantation may provide us with some insight into the controversy.

METHODS

Data from May 1994 to October 2022 of explantation cases from aesthetic breast augmentation in three medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics, time to explantation, reasons for visit, the major reason for explantation and intraoperative findings were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 522 patients with 1004 breasts were included in our study. Objective explantation reasons accounted for 34.0% in primary augmentation breasts and 47.6% in revision augmentation breasts, which were significantly different (p = 0.006). The most common complaint was dissatisfaction with breast appearance, followed by concerns about implant safety, poor hand feeling and pain. 43.5% of the implants worn for more than 10 years were removed for objective reasons, which was found significantly different with the proportion of objective reasons in implants removed within 1 year and 1-5 years postoperatively (p < 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of different reasons for implant explantation varies across the times of surgeries and the years that the implant had been worn. As the years of implant wearing increase, the proportion of subjective reasons decreases in implant removal cases and objective reasons increase among them.

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 .

On the Safety of Implanted Breast Prostheses in Accidental Impacts

The employment of breast silicone implants, both in aesthetic and reconstructive medicine, is widespread thanks to their recognized biocompatibility and durability. Some critical situations, for example, in the case of accidental impacts, may induce concerns by potential patients about their use. Dynamic tests reproducing frontal impacts at speeds up to 90 km/h, with anthropomorphic dummies carrying 330 cc prostheses and wearing safety belts, were conducted. Tests showed a significant probability of internal gel loss following implant damage at the highest speed. Moreover, considering that prostheses may remain implanted for many years, the effects of accelerated aging at 37 °C, 60 °C, 75 °C and 90 °C in physiological solution were also investigated. Tensile tests of the shell material and compressive tests of the full prosthesis showed evidence of variation in the prostheses' mechanical characteristics after aging, which affects their stiffness, deformability and strength. These results stress the importance of medical investigations for possible damages of the implanted prostheses in the case of an accident.

Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

Breast implants (BI) are widely used in plastic surgery, though they are not lifetime devices. Average life before rupture is reported to be around 10-15 years. No consensus exists regarding which factors are involved.

OBJECTIVES

Following FDA recommendations, this study aims at identifying potential risk factors by evaluating their effect on BI rupture cases.

METHODS

In this observational study, 763 BI patients were operated between 2003 and 2019, with a mean implant indwelling of 12.2 years. Patients that returned for follow-up were administered a questionnaire regarding postoperative lifestyle and habits. Implant rupture rate was 15.1%, while BI lifespan was 10.1 years. We obtained complete data from 191 breast implant patients (288 implants). Twenty-three potential risk factors were evaluated and divided in four categories: patient-related, surgery-related, postoperative complications/symptoms, and postoperative care/lifestyle habits. Odds Ratio (OR) for each factor was calculated. Linear regression analysis was calculated for those with a significant OR.

RESULTS

We report 120 patients (195 implants) with intact and 71 (93 implants) with ruptured devices. BIs were macrotextured in 95.1% of cases (86.8% Allergan BIOCELL). OR was significant for underwire bra use (OR: 2.708), car seat belts (OR: 3.066), mammographic imaging (OR: 2.196), weightlifting (OR: 0.407) and carry-on heavy purses and backpacks (OR: 0.347).

CONCLUSION

Wearing underwire bras, seat belts and undergoing mammography increases the risk of rupture. Weightlifting and carry heavy bags do not increase that risk. Implant rupture is directly linked with time of indwelling. Postoperative recommendations in BI patients should consider findings from our study, though larger multicenter studies should be encouraged.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

How Big Is Too Big? Exploring the Relationship between Breast Implant Volume and Postoperative Complication Rates in Primary Breast Augmentations

There is no consensus regarding implant size as an independent risk factor for complications in primary breast augmentation. Choosing appropriate implant volume is an integral part of the preoperative planning process. The current study aims to assess the relationship between implant size and the development of complications following augmentation mammaplasty.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing primary breast augmentation at the Westmount Institute of Plastic Surgery between January 2000 and December 2021 was conducted. Demographics, implant characteristics, surgical technique, postoperative complications, and follow-up times were recorded. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors, which were then included in multivariate logistic regressions of implant volume and implant volume/body mass index (BMI) ratio regarding complications.

Results

A total of 1017 patients (2034 breasts) were included in this study. The average implant volume used was 321.4 ± 57.5 cm³ (range: 110-605). Increased volume and volume/BMI ratio were associated with a significant increase in risk of implant rupture (odds ratio = 1.012, P < 0.001 and 1.282, P < 0.001 respectively). Rates of asymmetry were significantly associated with increases in implant volume and volume/BMI ratio (odds ratio = 1.005, P = 0.004 and 1.151, P < 0.001, respectively). No single implant volume or volume/BMI ratio above which risks of complications significantly increase was identified.

Conclusions

Implant rupture and postoperative asymmetries are positively correlated with bigger implant volumes. Implant size could likely be a useful independent predictor of certain complications, especially in patients with high implant to BMI ratios.

Silicone Breast Implant Rupture is More Prevalent in the Dominant Limb Side, A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Breast implant rupture is associated with multiple risk factors such as implant age, manufacturer, and a history of trauma to the breast. However, the exact mechanism of breast implant rupture remains unclear. We hypothesize that repetitive minor mechanical forces on the implant collectively play a significant role in the cascade that eventually leads to its rupture. Therefore, we expect a more significant cumulative effect on the breast implant in the dominant upper limb side. Thus, we aim to ascertain whether laterality in silicone breast implant rupture is associated with the dominant upper limb.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients with silicone breast implants who underwent an elective breast implant removal or exchange. All patients had breast augmentations for cosmetic reasons. We collected data on implant rupture laterality and limb dominance together with known risk factors like patient age, implant age, implant pocket, and implant volume.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients with unilateral implant rupture were included in the study. Among patients with a dominant right limb (n = 133), an ipsilateral rupture was found in 77 patients (58%) (p = 0.036), while in patients with a left dominant limb (n = 21), an ipsilateral rupture was found in 14 patients (67%), (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The dominant limb was a significant risk factor for ipsilateral breast implant rupture. The prevailing theory that cyclic envelope movement carries an increased rupture risk is reinforced in this study. Extensive prospective studies are needed to clarify risk factors for implant rupture further.

Silicone Breast Implant Rupture From Pectoralis Muscle Contraction Causing IgA Nephropathy: A Case Report

A 34-year-old woman who was diagnosed with a left breast carcinoma underwent breast conserving surgery and axillary dissection. This was followed with adjuvant breast irradiation and endocrine therapy. She had a local recurrence in the breast 7 years later. She underwent a left nipple sparing mastectomy and submuscular implant reconstruction. The silicone implant ruptured during an episode of strong pectoralis muscle contraction, 5 years postimplantation. MRI confirmed the rupture to be intracapsular and extracapsular. She declined implant replacement. She presented with painless hematuria 2.5 years after the rupture. A renal biopsy confirmed IgA nephropathy.

Complications of Capsulectomies: An Analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Database

Background

Although plastic surgeons commonly perform capsulectomies for a variety of peri-prosthetic capsular conditions, the safety of capsulectomy remains unknown, and the literature lacks evidence describing its morbidity and complication rates for patients inquiring about its associated risks.

Objectives

The present study aims to identify and define the complication rates associated with capsulectomies.

Methods

An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was performed between the years 2015 and 2018. All information pertaining to demographics, patient-related information, surgical indications, procedure-related information, outcomes, and complications were assessed.

Results

The study identified 2231 cases of surgeon-reported capsulectomies; indications most commonly reported included capsular contracture (n = 638, 28.6%) and breast implant rupture (n = 403, 18.1%). In total, 141 patients (6.32%) were hospitalized for longer than 1 postoperative day (range, 2-28 days), while the overall complication rate was 3.0% (n = 67/2231 patients). Incidence of minor complications, representing superficial surgical site infections, was 0.8%, while the major complication rate was 2.24%. These included 7 cases of deep surgical site infections (0.3%), 19 organ space infections (0.9%), and 8 cases of wound dehiscence (0.4%). Eight patients developed sepsis (0.4%); 6 patients required transfusions (0.3%); 1 case of postoperative pneumonia and 1 myocardial infarction were also identified (n = 1 each, 0.0%). The overall reoperation and readmission rates were 2.0%, representing a readmission rate of 66% among patients with complications.

Conclusions

The present study provides the first estimate of the incidence of complications associated with capsulectomies. Although the NSQIP database contains significant limitations, the data presented herein describe a complication profile that plastic surgeons can share with their patients during informed consent.

Level of Evidence: 4

A Surgeon's Empirical Perspectives on Use of High-resolution Ultrasound in Preoperatively Detecting a Rupture in the Context of Breast Implant Crisis in Korea

BACKGROUND

We previously proposed a novel method for detecting a rupture of a breast implant using high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). We therefore conducted this retrospective, observational study to describe its feasibility in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of the device in patients receiving an implant-based augmentation mammaplasty.

METHODS

We initially evaluated the medical records of the patients who had received primary or secondary augmentation mammaplasty using a breast implant at other hospitals for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes between August 31, 2017, and August 31, 2020. The patients underwent breast US using the Aplio i600 (Canon Medical System, Otawara, Tochigi, Japan) system with a 7-18 MHz linear transducer. Through a retrospective review of the patients' medical records, we analyzed their baseline and clinical characteristics. Then, we compared an agreement between preoperative diagnosis of rupture on HRUS and findings at reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients with rupture (55 breasts) were evaluated for the performance of ultrasound in making a diagnosis of rupture. This showed that they were unaware of rupture but they were diagnosed with it on ultrasound. Preoperatively, there were no cases of rupture in 110 left breasts (80.9%) and 107 right breasts (78.7%), which exactly matched to the number of breasts without rupture on HRUS. Moreover, preoperatively, there were 26 (19.1%) and 29 cases (21.3%) of rupture in the left and right breast, respectively, which exactly matched to the number of breasts with rupture on HRUS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, patients who are suspected of having rupture of a breast implant should be stringently evaluated for presence of rupture and, if any, its scope using HRUS. Moreover, we propose that surgeons consider using HRUS in making a preoperative diagnosis of rupture of a breast implant.

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 .

Current Challenges in Breast Implantation

Breast implantation (BI) is the most common plastic surgery worldwide performed among women. Generally, BI is performed both in aesthetic and oncoplastic procedures. Recently, the prevalence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) or breast implant illness (BII) has aroused concerns. As a result, several countries, like Australia, Korea or the United Kingdom, introduced national registries dedicated to the safety and quality of BI surgeries. This narrative review aimed to focus on the clinical challenges, management and the current state of knowledge of BI. Both short and long-term outcomes of BI are determined by various alternatives and differences, which surgeons must consider during the planning and performing breast augmentation along with further complications or risk of reoperation. Proper preoperative decisions and aspects of surgical technique emerged to be equally important. The number of performed breast reconstructions is increasing, providing the finest aesthetic results and improving patient’s quality of life. Choice of prosthesis varies according to individual preferences and anatomical variables. A newly diagnosed cases of BIA-ALCL with lacking data on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are placing it as a compelling medical challenge. Similarly, BII remains one of the most controversial subjects in reconstructive breast surgery due to unspecified diagnostic procedures, and recommendations.

Pre-Lubricated Polypropylene Injector for Breast Implant Delivery

Breast augmentation is a common esthetic surgery, and there are two major surgical methods for breast implant delivery: the finger method and the plastic film method. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and we have developed a prelubricated polypropylene (PP) injector that might be the most suitable device for delivering breast implants. By covering the interior surface of the injector with a hydrophilic coating, the friction coefficient was significantly reduced when a silicone sled was slid against the prelubricated PP injector. To confirm if the prelubricated PP injector would not damage the breast implant, fatigue testing was performed, and the results showed that the injector did not cause rupture or microleakage of the breast implant. In addition, the cell viability result demonstrated that the prelubricated PP injector was biocompatible. In addition, the prelubricated PP injector provides a small incision site and stability during breast implant delivery. Our results provided evidence that the prelubricated PP injector is a smooth and safe method for breast implant delivery.

Predictors for Implant Rupture in Two-Stage Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Two-stage tissue expander/implant-based method has been used predominantly for breast reconstruction. Implant rupture is one of the bothersome complications, inducing additional morbidity including reoperation. The present study aimed to identify the independent factors associated with development of implant rupture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent immediate two-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2016 were reviewed. Inserted implants were followed up using magnetic resonance imaging every 2 years and/or ultrasound/computed tomography scans every 6 or 12 months that were conducted for cancer surveillance. Associations of perioperative and intraoperative variables with the development of implant rupture were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 797 cases (744 patients) were analyzed. During a median follow-up of 43 months after second-stage operation, implant rupture was identified in 22 cases. The 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.1%. Multivariable analyses showed that the interval between the first- and second-stage operations was inversely associated with the risk of implant rupture. Maximal discrimination was observed at the interval of 6.5 months. Cases with an interval ≤ 6 months were associated with higher risks for implant rupture than those with ≥ 7 months, after adjusting for other variables. Type of implant was associated with the development of implant rupture, showing that using two kinds of fourth-generation implant (Allergan Biocell textured round and Allergan smooth round implants) was associated with a significantly increased risk of implant rupture compared with that of Mentor MemoryShape implants (fifth-generation implant).

CONCLUSION

Several operation-related variables appear to be associated with implant rupture in two-stage prosthetic reconstruction.

A Case of Silicone and Sarcoid Granulomas in a Patient with "Highly Cohesive" Silicone Breast Implants: A Histopathologic and Laser Raman Microprobe Analysis

Foreign body giant cell (FBGC) reaction to silicone material in the lymph nodes of patients with silicone breast implants has been documented in the literature, with a number of case reports dating back to 1978. Many of these case reports describe histologic features of silicone lymphadenopathy in regional lymph nodes from patients with multiple sets of different types of implants, including single lumen smooth surface gel, single lumen textured surface gel, single lumen with polyethylene terephthalate patch, single lumen with polyurethane coating, and double lumen smooth surface. Only one other case report described a patient with highly-cohesive breast implants and silicone granulomas of the skin. In this article, we describe a patient with a clinical presentation of systemic sarcoidosis following highly cohesive breast implant placement. Histopathologic analysis and Confocal Laser Raman Microprobe (CLRM) examination were used to confirm the presence of silicone in the axillary lymph node and capsular tissues. This is the first report where chemical spectroscopic mapping has been used to establish and identify the coexistence of Schaumann bodies, consisting of calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate minerals, together with silicone implant material.

Multiple polyurethane implant punctures during fat grafting: case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation with implants continues to be the most popular aesthetic surgical procedure performed worldwide. Fat grafting may improve the results of breast augmentation and breast reconstruction with implants. However, fat grafting to the breast with implants carries the risk of implant puncture. To our best knowledge this is the first case in which polyurethane implant puncture during fat grafting is described.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report multiple bilateral implant punctures with the cannula during fat grafting in a patient who previously underwent breast reconstruction with polyurethane implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants that promote tissue ingrowth may be more prone to puncture with the cannula during fat grafting. Specific planning and surgical maneuvers decrease the risk of implant puncture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, case report.

The surface stress of biomedical silicones is a stimulant of cellular response

Silicones are commonly used for lubrication of syringes, encapsulation of medical devices, and fabrication of surgical implants. While silicones are generally viewed as relatively inert to the cellular milieu, they can mediate a variety of inflammatory responses and other deleterious effects, but the mechanisms underlying the bioactivity of silicones remain unresolved. Here, we report that silicone liquids and gels have high surface stresses that can strongly resist deformation at cellular length scales. Biomedical silicones, including syringe lubricants and fillings from FDA-approved breast implants, readily adsorb matrix proteins and activate canonical rigidity sensing pathways through their surface stresses. In 3D culture models, liquid silicone droplets support robust cellular adhesion and the formation of multinucleated monocyte-derived cell masses that recapitulate phenotypic aspects of granuloma formation in the foreign body response. Together, our findings implicate surface stress as a cellular stimulant that should be considered in application of silicones for biomedical purposes.

Cosmetic reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Opportunities for nanocomposite materials

The most common malignancy in women, breast cancer remains a major medical challenge that affects the life of thousands of patients every year. With recognized benefits to body image and self-esteem, the use of synthetic mammary implants for elective cosmetic augmentation and post-mastectomy reconstruction continues to increase. Higher breast implant use leads to an increased occurrence of implant-related complications associated with implant leakage and rupture, capsular contracture, necrosis and infections, which include delayed healing, pain, poor aesthetic outcomes and the need for revision surgeries. Along with the health status of the implant recipient and the skill of the surgeon, the properties of the implant determine the likelihood of implant-related complications and, in doing so, specific patient outcomes. This paper will review the challenges associated with the use of silicone, saline and "gummy bear" implants in view of their application in patients recovering from breast cancer-related mastectomy, and investigate the opportunities presented by advanced functional nanomaterials in meeting these challenges and potentially opening new dimensions for breast reconstruction. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Breast cancer is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in women worldwide, which is difficult to prevent or predict, and its treatment carries long-term physiological and psychological consequences. Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction addresses the cosmetic aspect of cancer treatment. Yet, drawbacks of current implants contribute to the development of implant-associated complications, which may lead to prolonged patient care, pain and loss of function. Nanomaterials can help resolve the intrinsic biomechanical mismatch between implant and tissues, enhance mechanical properties of soft implantable materials, and provide an alternative avenue for controlled drug delivery. Here, we explore advances in the use of functionalized nanomaterials to enhance the properties of breast implants, with representative examples that highlight the utility of nanomaterials in addressing key challenges associated with breast reconstruction.

Clinical Results on Innovation in Breast Implant Design

Breast implants have been shadowed in controversy since their introduction to the market; however, they represent a multi-million dollar industry and play a critical role both for cosmetic augmentation and enhancement and for reconstruction following treatment for cancer. With advancements in technology, breast implants have evolved tremendously over the years. Further, with the cessation of the FDA implemented moratorium on silicone, the use of silicone implants has grown exponentially over the years. Novel designs in the outer shell, breast implant fill particularly the cohesivity of the silicone gel, texturing of the outer shell, and the shape and projection of breast implants have produced a broad array of implants that can be employed by plastic and reconstructive surgeons to maximize outcomes for patients. However, despite the innovations in breast implant design and engineering, it is unclear whether these have had any influence on outcomes and patient satisfaction. The present article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the technological advancements in breast implant technology in optimizing patient outcomes and minimizing complications associated with placement of breast implants for aesthetic as well as reconstructive procedures. The article will provide a synopsis of round versus shaped breast implants, saline versus silicone especially the advent of cohesive silicone gel implants, and the texturing of the outer shell, and how each of these components should be considered when counseling patients and deciding which implants offer the optimal benefits for each individual patient.

Mechanical irritation by protruding bone: A possible cause of breast implant rupture

Although breast implants have been in clinical use for almost 6 decades and have undergone considerable development during this time, implant rupture is still a dreaded long-term complication. Some obvious external factors, such as trauma, can lead to implant rupture, but many studies have reported a high rate of “spontaneous” implant rupture. Herein, we present two cases with the aim of raising awareness of a new possible cause of “spontaneous” implant rupture: mechanical irritation by bony protrusions.

Silicone Migration and Late Hematoma following Silicone Implant Rupture: Case Report and Literature Review

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Distant silicone migration and late postoperative hematoma are rare but serious complications following breast implant rupture. This study describes a case report of both these complications occurring in the same patient. After a review of pertinent literature, the authors found 19 other case reports (20 total patients) with distant silicone migration following breast implant rupture. Median age at the time of presentation was 48 years (range, 21–76), and median time between initial breast augmentation and presentation with silicone migration was 10 years (range, 1–30 years). Sites of migrated silicone included arm/forearm (n = 11), thoracic cavity (n = 4), abdominal wall (n = 3), legs (n = 2), and back (n = 1). A total of 67% of patients had documented trauma to the chest before presentation. Our study highlights the need to consider distant silicone migration in the differential diagnosis when extracapsular implant rupture is suspected.

Unexpected Silicone Breast Implant Rupture After Implantation of Insertable Loop Recorder

Complications of insertable loop recorder (ILR) are rare. The ILR is a cardiac monitoring device placed subcutaneously in the left parasternal region. It is commonly used for continuous monitoring in patients with unexplained and recurrent episodes of palpitations and syncope. We report a rare complication of subacute breast implant rupture in a patient after ILR placement. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such reported case in the literature.

Breast reconstruction of an unusual configuration using two paranemic implants

Implant-based breast reconstruction can be performed using a choice of various types of breast implants. However, cases where the breast shapes are unsuitable for implant-based reconstruction method are occasionally encountered. We present two patients with wide trunks who underwent breast reconstruction using an unusual configuration that involved a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap combined with two paranemic implants.

The Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS): Development and psychometric evaluation in U.S. community women and men

Body functionality has been identified as an important dimension of body image that has the potential to be useful in the prevention and treatment of negative body image and in the enhancement of positive body image. Specifically, cultivating appreciation of body functionality may offset appearance concerns. However, a scale assessing this construct has yet to be developed. Therefore, we developed the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS) and examined its psychometric properties among three online community samples totalling 1042 women and men (ns=490 and 552, respectively). Exploratory factor analyses revealed a unidimensional structure with seven items. Confirmatory factor analysis upheld its unidimensionality and invariance across gender. The internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion-related, and construct (convergent, discriminant, incremental) validity of its scores were upheld. The FAS is a psychometrically sound measure that is unique from existing positive body image measures. Scholars will find the FAS applicable within research and clinical settings.

Efficacy of ultrasound, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting breast implant rupture: A retrospective study of 175 reconstructive and aesthetic sub-pectoral breast augmentation cases

To date, the effectiveness of radiological imaging in detecting silicone breast implant rupture is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of radiological imaging when diagnosing a rupture. In this study, 175 patients with 242 breast implants were included, of which 168 and 74 implants were used for breast reconstruction and aesthetic augmentation, respectively. All patients who underwent revision surgery, between January 2015 and June 2016, following breast augmentation or reconstruction were included, regardless of any pre-operative diagnosis of rupture that had been made. The diagnosis of intracapsular rupture was verified intraoperatively and compared to the pre-operative findings. With regard to pre-operative diagnostic imaging methods, we compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, and ultrasonography (US) findings. Among the 242 implants that were explanted, 35 clinical ruptures were confirmed and compared with the related radiological findings. We reported 22 false positives and 15 false negatives. US was the least specific and least accurate method because of its lowest positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Mammography was the most specific and most accurate method, with the highest PPV (96%). Surprisingly, MRI was the most sensitive; however, it was neither the most specific nor the most accurate method despite having the highest NPV (98%). After comparing these three radiological techniques, we conclude that US along with MRI can be useful for young patients. Mammography, which was characterised by high specificity and accuracy, could be useful along with MRI in investigating patients over the age of 40.

Silicone breast implant rupture: a review

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

Five-Year Outcomes of Breast Augmentation with Form-Stable Implants: Periareolar vs Transaxillary

BACKGROUND

Form-stable 410 implants have the potential advantage of maintaining their anatomic form thanks to the cohesiveness of the gel. Furthermore, Biocell texturing appears to maximize adhesion and to allow for implant immobility.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the rate of reoperations for transaxillary and periareolar approaches for breast augmentation.

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 373 patients with a 5-year follow up. Patient demographics, self-perception and esteem, surgical technique, and implant characteristics were documented. The reasons for reoperation for both approaches were reviewed.

RESULTS

Transaxillary breast augmentation was used in 302 patients (81%) and periareolar breast augmentation in 71 patients (19%). In the axillary group, 210 had subfascial placement (69.5%), and 92 patients had submuscular placement (30.5%). In the nipple-areolar complex group, 50 were subfascial (70.4%), and 21 were submuscular (29.6%). The reoperation rate for the patients operated on during this time and followed for 5 years was 11% (8 patients) for the nipple-areolar complex approach and 8.3% (25 patients) in the axillary group. Capsular contracture grade III or IV were the main causes for reoperation for any technique (4.2% nipple-areolar complex vs 3.3% axillary). Other reasons were implant rupture, seroma, infection, implant malrotation, implant malposition, and rippling.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of reoperations was similar to those described in the literature for this type of implant. There were no statistically significant differences between the various techniques, although the reoperation rate was significantly higher when a periareolar subfascial technique was used.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Therapeutic.

Analysis of 109 Consecutive Explanted Breast Implants: Correlation Between Suspected Implant Rupture and Surgical Findings

INTRODUCTION

The use of breast implants is on the rise due to increases in breast reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Implant rupture is a possible complication. Among assessment modalities for implant rupture detection, MRI is considered the gold standard.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective analysis of 57 women after breast augmentation or postmastectomy reconstruction (109 implants), admitted to our department between 2010 and 2015 due to suspected implant rupture. We correlated surgical findings with symptoms, physical examination, imaging, and device specifications.

RESULTS

Seventy-four explanted implants were preoperatively suspected as ruptured. Over a third were intact and unjustifiably explanted. MRI evaluation was the most accurate modality. Interestingly, 61 % of ruptured implants were left-sided. Patient's age, comorbidities, smoking, medications, presenting symptoms, implant duration, and volume did not correlate with implant rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed preexisting data regarding the importance of imaging diagnosis, with MRI being the most accurate modality in both diagnosing and ruling out implant rupture. Interestingly, our study showed that MRI was accurate in detecting all intact implants, unlike lower detection rates reported in previous studies, thus preventing unnecessary explantation. Another unique finding was that the left-sided implants were significantly prone for rupture. As iatrogenic damage is the most common cause of implant rupture, with most surgeons being right-handed, awareness during surgery must be augmented, with further investigation required for potential causes of this unexpected difference. Our study emphasizes the importance of understanding the causes of rupture and the need for evidence-based indications regarding imaging and replacement of implants.

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 .

Silicone Breast Implant and Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Can They Coexist? A Case Report

We present a case of a silicone breast implant rupture after insertion of an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD). A 51-year-old woman presented to our plastic surgery clinic to exchange her silicone breast implants. The patient underwent cosmetic mastopexy and breast augmentation in 2008. Because of recurrent myocardial infarctions and chronic heart failure, she underwent an insertion of an AICD in 2014 in which the left breast implant was hit. In this report, we discuss the first case of an AICD insertion, disrupting a breast implant. This case report illustrates the rare but real possibility of breast implant rupture after even minor surgical manipulation of the breast area.