• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.4-10
• /
• 2015

Mammary implants marketed by Poly Implant Proth$\grave{e}$se (PIP) were found to contain industrial grade silicone and this caused heightened anxiety and extensive publicity regarding their safety in humans. These implants were used in a large number of patients worldwide for augmentation or breast reconstruction. We reviewed articles identified by searches of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases up to May 2014 using the terms: "PIP", "Poly Implant Proth$\grave{e}$se", "breast implants" and "augmentation mammoplasty" "siloxanes" or "silicone". In addition the websites of regulating bodies in Europe, USA, and Australia were searched for reports related to PIP mammary implants. PIP mammary implants are more likely to rupture than other implants and can cause adverse effects in the short to the medium term related to the symptoms of rupture such as pain, lumps in the breast and axilla and anxiety. Based on peer-reviewed published studies we have calculated an overall rupture rate of 14.5% (383/2,635) for PIP implants. However, there is no evidence that PIP implant rupture causes long-term adverse health effects in humans so far. Silicone lymphadenopathy represents a foreign body reaction and should be treated conservatively. The long-term adverse effects usually arise from inappropriate extensive surgery, such as axillary lymph node dissection or extensive resection of breast tissue due to silicone leakage.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.353-360
• /
• 2021

Background Despite evidence supporting the safety of breast implants, some women associate their implants with adverse health effects and have called this syndrome "breast implant illness." We sought to characterize breast implant illness symptoms and to report how implant removal affects their symptoms. Methods An anonymous 20 question survey was administered to the Facebook group: "UTAH Breast Implant Illness" to characterize the symptoms these women attributed to their breast implants. Several questions allowed us to evaluate how implant removal affected women's symptoms. Results Of the 182 respondents, 97% report that implants negatively affect their health and 95% identify these symptoms with breast implant illness. Ninety-six percent of respondents had implants placed for cosmetic reasons and 51% had silicone implants. The most common symptoms associated with breast implant illness are brain fog (95%), fatigue (92%), joint pain (80%), and hair loss (74%). Sixty percent of respondents learned about breast implant illness from family/friends and/or social media platforms (56%), 40% of respondents had their implants removed, and 97% report relief of their symptoms post-removal (23% complete, 74% partial). Following explantation, there was a significant improvement in all but one reported symptom. An association was found between the number of symptoms reported prior to explantation and the number of symptoms resolving following explantation. Conclusions Breast implant illness is a syndrome characterized by fatigue, decreased focus, hair loss, and joint pain after the placement of breast implants. Nearly all patients report improvement of symptoms after implant removal. Significant efforts should be made to better understand breast implant illness and its etiology.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.19-27
• /
• 2013

Background Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allografts and their putative benefits have been increasingly described in prosthesis based breast reconstruction. There have been a myriad of analyses outlining ADM complication profiles, but few large-scale, multi-institutional studies exploring these outcomes. In this study, complication rates of acellular dermis-assisted tissue expander breast reconstruction were compared with traditional submuscular methods by evaluation of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry. Methods Patients who underwent immediate tissue expander breast reconstruction from 2006-2010 were identified using surgical procedure codes. Two hundred forty tracked variables from over 250 participating sites were extracted for patients undergoing acellular dermis-assisted versus submuscular tissue expander reconstruction. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes and captured risk factors for complications were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 9,159 patients underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction; 1,717 using acellular dermis and 7,442 with submuscular expander placement. Total complications and reconstruction related complications were similar in both cohorts (5.5% vs. 5.3%, P=0.68 and 4.7% vs. 4.3%, P=0.39, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression revealed body mass index and smoking as independent risk factors for reconstructive complications in both cohorts (P<0.01). Conclusions The NSQIP database provides large-scale, multi-institutional, independent outcomes for acellular dermis and submuscular breast reconstruction. Both thirty-day complication profiles and risk factors for post operative morbidity are similar between these two reconstructive approaches.