Cargando…

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: W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baek, Woo Yeol, Lew, Dae Hyun, Lee, Dong Won
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25396188
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734
_version_ 1782343936045481984
author Baek, Woo Yeol
Lew, Dae Hyun
Lee, Dong Won
author_facet Baek, Woo Yeol
Lew, Dae Hyun
Lee, Dong Won
author_sort Baek, Woo Yeol
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4228218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42282182014-11-13 A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants Baek, Woo Yeol Lew, Dae Hyun Lee, Dong Won Arch Plast Surg Original Article 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. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons 2014-11 2014-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4228218/ /pubmed/25396188 http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734 Text en Copyright © 2014 The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Baek, Woo Yeol
Lew, Dae Hyun
Lee, Dong Won
A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title_full A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title_fullStr A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title_full_unstemmed A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title_short A Retrospective Analysis of Ruptured Breast Implants
title_sort retrospective analysis of ruptured breast implants
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25396188
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734
work_keys_str_mv AT baekwooyeol aretrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants
AT lewdaehyun aretrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants
AT leedongwon aretrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants
AT baekwooyeol retrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants
AT lewdaehyun retrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants
AT leedongwon retrospectiveanalysisofrupturedbreastimplants