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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |