Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734
A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
Background Rupture is an important complication of breast implants. Before cohesive gel silicone implants, rupture rates of both saline and silicone breast implants were over 10%. Through an analysis of ruptured implants, we can determine the various factors related to ruptured implants.
Methods We performed a retrospective review of 72 implants that were removed for implant rupture between 2005 and 2014 at a single institution. The following data were collected: type of implants (saline or silicone), duration of implantation, type of implant shell, degree of capsular contracture, associated symptoms, cause of rupture, diagnostic tools, and management.
Results Forty-five Saline implants and 27 silicone implants were used. Rupture was diagnosed at a mean of 5.6 and 12 years after insertion of saline and silicone implants, respectively. There was no association between shell type and risk of rupture. Spontaneous was the most common reason for the rupture. Rupture management was implant change (39 case), microfat graft (2 case), removal only (14 case), and follow-up loss (17 case).
Conclusions Saline implants have a shorter average duration of rupture, but diagnosis is easier and safer, leading to fewer complications. Previous-generation silicone implants required frequent follow-up observation, and it is recommended that they be changed to a cohesive gel implant before hidden rupture occurs.
Publication History
Received: 29 April 2014
Accepted: 23 June 2014
Article published online:
05 May 2022
© 2014. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA. et al. Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1057-1064
- 2 de Camara DL, Sheridan JM, Kammer BA. Rupture and aging of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91: 828-834
- 3 Walker PS, Walls B, Murphy DK. Natrelle saline-filled breast implants: a prospective 10-year study. Aesthet Surg J 2009; 29: 19-25
- 4 Hölmich LR, Friis S, Fryzek JP. et al. Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 801-806
- 5 Feng LJ, Amini SB. Analysis of risk factors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104: 955-963
- 6 Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis. In: Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; 1963 Oct 13-18. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Excerpta Medica; 1964: 41-49
- 7 Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Possible future development of implants and breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2009; 36: 167-172
- 8 Daniels AU. Silicone breast implant materials. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13614
- 9 Brown SL, Silverman BG, Berg WA. Rupture of silicone-gel breast implants: causes, sequelae, and diagnosis. Lancet 1997; 350: 1531-1537
- 10 Yang S, Khang YH, Harper S. et al. Understanding the rapid increase in life expectancy in South Korea. Am J Public Health 2010; 100: 896-903
- 11 Peters W, Keystone E, Smith D. Factors affecting the rupture of silicone-gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32: 449-451
- 12 Levi B, Rademaker AW, Fine NA. et al. Comparison of breast implant deflation for mentor anterior and posterior valve designs in aesthetic and reconstructive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 685-692
- 13 Gutowski KA, Mesna GT, Cunningham BL. Saline-filled breast implants: a Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation multicenter outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1019-1027
- 14 Lantieri LA, Roudot-Thoraval F, Collins ED. et al. Influence of underfilling on breast implant deflation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1740-1744
- 15 Rohrich RJ, Reece EM. Breast augmentation today: saline versus silicone—What are the facts?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 669-672
- 16 Wang TY, Albornoz C, Hu Q. et al. Abstract 9: a 10-year experience of routine MRI screening for silicone implant rupture: are FDA recommendations supported by evidence?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133: 978
- 17 Hölmich LR, Vejborg IM, Conrad C. et al. Untreated silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 204-214
- 18 Duffy MJ, Woods JE. Health risks of failed silicone gel breast implants: a 30-year clinical experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 94: 295-299
- 19 Correia-Sá I, Rodrigues-Pereira P, Marques M. The "PIP problem": clinical and histologic characteristics. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37: 936-940
- 20 Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K. et al. The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54: 583-589
- 21 Chung KC, Malay S, Shauver MJ. et al. Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 225-237
- 22 Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor's MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 440-444