DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants Revisited: A 30-Year Follow-Up

  • Castel, Nikki (Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Hawai'i, John A. Burns School of Medicine) ;
  • Soon-Sutton, Taylor (Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Hawai'i, John A. Burns School of Medicine) ;
  • Deptula, Peter (Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Hawai'i, John A. Burns School of Medicine) ;
  • Flaherty, Anna (Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Hawai'i, John A. Burns School of Medicine) ;
  • Parsa, Fereydoun Don (Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Hawai'i, John A. Burns School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2014.11.13
  • Accepted : 2014.12.09
  • Published : 2015.03.15

Abstract

Background Polyurethane coating of breast implants has been shown to reduce capsular contracture in short-term follow-up studies. This 30-year study is the longest examination of the use of polyurethane-coated implants and their correlation with capsular contracture. Methods This study evaluates the senior surgeon's (F.D.P.) experience with the use of polyurethane-coated implants in aesthetic breast augmentation in 382 patients over 30 years. Follow-up evaluations were conducted for six months after surgery. After the six-month follow-up period, 76 patients returned for reoperation. The gross findings, histology, and associated capsular contracture were noted at the time of explantation. Results No patient during the six-month follow-up period demonstrated capsular contracture. For those who underwent reoperation for capsular contracture, Baker II/III contractures were noted nine to 10 years after surgery and Baker IV contractures were noted 12 to 21 years after surgery. None of the explanted implants had macroscopic evidence of polyurethane, which was only found during the first five years after surgery. The microscopic presence of polyurethane was noted in all capsules up to 30 years after the original operation. Conclusions An inverse correlation was found between the amount of polyurethane coating on the implant and the occurrence of capsular contracture. Increasingly severe capsular contracture was associated with a decreased amount of polyurethane coating on the surface of the implants. No contracture occurred in patients whose implants showed incomplete biodegradation of polyurethane, as indicated by the visible presence of polyurethane coating. We recommend research to find a non-toxic, non-biodegradable synthetic material as an alternative to polyurethane.

Keywords

References

  1. Ashley FL. A new type of breast prosthesis. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970;45:421-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197005000-00001
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA breast implant consumer handbook 2004: timeline of breast implant activities. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013 [cited 2015 Jan 12]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/ucm064242.htm.
  3. Van Zele D, Heymans O. Breast implants. A review. Acta Chir Belg 2004;104:158-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2004.11679528
  4. National Toxicology Program. Bioassay of 2,4-diaminotoluene for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser 1979;162:1-139.
  5. Pharma and MedTech Business Intellignece. The gray sheet: bristol-myers squibb polyurethane-coated breast implant study [Internet]. Informa Business Information Inc.; 1993 [cited 2015 Jan 12]. Available from: https://www.pharmamedtechbi.com/publications/the-gray-sheet/19/040/bristolmyers-squibb-polyurethanecoated-breast-implant-study.
  6. Hester TR Jr, Ford NF, Gale PJ, et al. Measurement of 2,4-toluenediamine in urine and serum samples from women with Meme or Replicon breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1291-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199710000-00035
  7. Parsa FD. Displaced inframammary fold after Meme breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:643-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198804000-00046
  8. Parsa FD. Breast capsulopexy for capsular ptosis after augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85:809-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199005000-00028
  9. Collis N, Coleman D, Foo IT, et al. Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglandular silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:786-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200009020-00005
  10. Cohney BC, Mitchell S. An improved method of removing polyurethane foam-covered gel prostheses. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1997;21:191-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002669900108
  11. Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR, et al. Reconstructive breast implantation after mastectomy for breast cancer: clinical outcomes in a nationwide prospective cohort study. Arch Surg 2005;140:1152-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.12.1152
  12. Kulmala I, McLaughlin JK, Pakkanen M, et al. Local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Finland. Ann Plast Surg 2004;53:413-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000131275.62449.c8
  13. Vazquez G. A ten-year experience using polyurethane-covered breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1999;23:189-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002669900267
  14. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, et al. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:757-67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000201457.00772.1d
  15. Coleman DJ, Foo IT, Sharpe DT. Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? A prospective controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 1991;44:444-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(91)90204-W
  16. Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH, et al. Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 2002;48:229-37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200203000-00001
  17. Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O'Fallon WM, et al. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1997;336:677-82. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199703063361001
  18. Peters W, Keystone E, Smith D. Factors affecting the rupture of silicone-gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 1994;32:449-51. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199405000-00001
  19. de Camara DL, Sheridan JM, Kammer BA. Rupture and aging of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;91:828-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199304001-00012
  20. Robinson OG Jr, Bradley EL, Wilson DS. Analysis of explanted silicone implants: a report of 300 patients. Ann Plast Surg 1995;34:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199501000-00001
  21. Marotta JS, Goldberg EP, Habal MB, et al. Silicone gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prostheses and meta-analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg 2002;49:227-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-200209000-00001
  22. Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, et al. Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women. J Rheumatol 2001;28:996-1003.
  23. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:1115-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000435317.76381.68
  24. Brand KG. Foam-covered mammary implants. Clin Plast Surg 1988;15:533-9.
  25. Brickman M, Parsa NN, Parsa FD. Late hematoma after breast implantation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004;28:80-2.

Cited by

  1. The In Vivo Pericapsular Tissue Response to Modern Polyurethane Breast Implants vol.39, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0550-4
  2. Commentary on: The Modern Polyurethane-Coated Implant in Breast Augmentation: Long-Term Clinical Experience vol.36, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw176
  3. A review of the use of silicone implants in breast surgery vol.13, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2016.1134310
  4. Polyurethane Implants in 2-Stage Breast Reconstruction: 9-Year Clinical Experience vol.37, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw183
  5. Response to “Comments on ‘Commentary on: The Modern Polyurethane-Coated Implant in Breast Augmentation: Long-Term Clinical Experience’” vol.37, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx016
  6. Shape memory polyurethanes with oxidation-induced degradation: In vivo and in vitro correlations for endovascular material applications vol.59, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.06.030
  7. Synthesis of waterborne polyurethane-silver nanoparticle antibacterial coating for synthetic leather vol.15, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-017-9997-3
  8. Polyurethane Microparticles for Stimuli Response and Reduced Oxidative Degradation in Highly Porous Shape Memory Polymers vol.10, pp.39, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b11082
  9. Long-Term Safety of Textured and Smooth Breast Implants vol.38, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx157
  10. Case of late hematoma after breast augmentation vol.45, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.01718
  11. Nanoporous 3D-Printed Scaffolds for Local Doxorubicin Delivery in Bone Metastases Secondary to Prostate Cancer vol.11, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11091485
  12. Hydrogels in adipose tissue engineering-Potential application in post‐mastectomy breast regeneration vol.12, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/term.2753
  13. The Epidemiology of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand Confirms the Highest Risk for Grade 4 Surface Breast Implants : vol.143, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005500
  14. Association Between Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Risk and Polyurethane Breast Implants: Clinical Evidence and European Perspective vol.39, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy328
  15. Removal of Polyurethane Implants vol.43, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1254-3
  16. Microtexture and the Cell/Biomaterial Interface: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Capsular Contracture and Prosthetic Breast Implants vol.39, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy178
  17. Systematic Investigation of Polyurethane Biomaterial Surface Roughness on Human Immune Responses in vitro vol.2020, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3481549
  18. Outcome of complete acellular dermal matrix wrap with polyurethane implant in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction vol.47, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2020.01207
  19. Polyurethane-Coated Implants for Prevention of Double-Bubble Effect in Breast Augmentation vol.7, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/2513826x211028926
  20. Current status of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in South Korea vol.64, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2021.64.1.5
  21. Additive Manufacturing of Multi‐Scale Porous Soft Tissue Implants That Encourage Vascularization and Tissue Ingrowth vol.10, pp.14, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202100229
  22. Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction With Prepectoral Micropolyurethane Foam-Coated Implant: Analysis of Patient Satisfaction vol.21, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2021.01.015