Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41(06): 734-739
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734
Original Article

A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants

Woo Yeol Baek
Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Dae Hyun Lew
Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Dong Won Lee
Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

Breast implantation - Silicone gel - Rupture


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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 de Camara DL, Sheridan JM, Kammer BA. Rupture and aging of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91: 828-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Walker PS, Walls B, Murphy DK. Natrelle saline-filled breast implants: a prospective 10-year study. Aesthet Surg J 2009; 29: 19-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hölmich LR, Friis S, Fryzek JP. et al. Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 801-806
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Feng LJ, Amini SB. Analysis of risk factors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104: 955-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Possible future development of implants and breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2009; 36: 167-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Daniels AU. Silicone breast implant materials. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13614
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brown SL, Silverman BG, Berg WA. Rupture of silicone-gel breast implants: causes, sequelae, and diagnosis. Lancet 1997; 350: 1531-1537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Peters W, Keystone E, Smith D. Factors affecting the rupture of silicone-gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32: 449-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lantieri LA, Roudot-Thoraval F, Collins ED. et al. Influence of underfilling on breast implant deflation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1740-1744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rohrich RJ, Reece EM. Breast augmentation today: saline versus silicone—What are the facts?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 669-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hölmich LR, Vejborg IM, Conrad C. et al. Untreated silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 204-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Correia-Sá I, Rodrigues-Pereira P, Marques M. The "PIP problem": clinical and histologic characteristics. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37: 936-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor's MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 440-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar