Cargando…

Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis

BACKGROUND: “Breast implant illness” (BII) is a poorly defined cluster of nonspecific symptoms, attributed by patients as being caused by their breast implants. These symptoms can include joint pain, skin and hair changes, concentration, and fatigue. Many patients complaining of BII symptoms are dis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Mark, Ponraja, Ganesa, McLeod, Kevin, Chong, Smathi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7209857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32440423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002755
_version_ 1783531172042637312
author Lee, Mark
Ponraja, Ganesa
McLeod, Kevin
Chong, Smathi
author_facet Lee, Mark
Ponraja, Ganesa
McLeod, Kevin
Chong, Smathi
author_sort Lee, Mark
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: “Breast implant illness” (BII) is a poorly defined cluster of nonspecific symptoms, attributed by patients as being caused by their breast implants. These symptoms can include joint pain, skin and hair changes, concentration, and fatigue. Many patients complaining of BII symptoms are dismissed as psychosomatic. There are currently over 10,000 peer-reviewed articles on breast implants, but at the time of commencing this study, only 2 articles discussed this entity. At the same time, mainstream media and social media are exploding with nonscientific discussion about BII. METHODS: We have prospectively followed 50 consecutive patients, self-referring for explantation due to BII. We analyzed their preoperative symptoms and followed up each patient with a Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. All implants and capsules were, if possible, removed en bloc. Explanted implants were photographed. Implant shell and capsule sent for histology and microbiological culture. RESULTS: BII symptoms were not shown to correlate with any particular implant type, surface, or fill. There was no significant finding as to duration of implant or location of original surgery. Chronic infection was found in 36% of cases with Propionibacterium acnes the most common finding. Histologically, synoviocyte metaplasia was found in a significantly greater incidence than a matched cohort that had no BII symptoms (P = 0.0164). Eighty-four percent of patients reported partial or complete resolution of BII symptoms on Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. None of the 50 patients would consider having breast implants again. CONCLUSION: The authors believe BII to be a genuine entity worthy of further study. We have identified microbiological and histological abnormalities in a significant number of patients identifying as having BII. A large proportion of these patients have reported resolution or improvement of their symptoms in patient-reported outcomes. Improved microbiology culture techniques may identify a larger proportion of chronic infection, and further investigation of immune phenotypes and toxicology may also be warranted in this group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7209857
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72098572020-05-21 Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis Lee, Mark Ponraja, Ganesa McLeod, Kevin Chong, Smathi Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article BACKGROUND: “Breast implant illness” (BII) is a poorly defined cluster of nonspecific symptoms, attributed by patients as being caused by their breast implants. These symptoms can include joint pain, skin and hair changes, concentration, and fatigue. Many patients complaining of BII symptoms are dismissed as psychosomatic. There are currently over 10,000 peer-reviewed articles on breast implants, but at the time of commencing this study, only 2 articles discussed this entity. At the same time, mainstream media and social media are exploding with nonscientific discussion about BII. METHODS: We have prospectively followed 50 consecutive patients, self-referring for explantation due to BII. We analyzed their preoperative symptoms and followed up each patient with a Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. All implants and capsules were, if possible, removed en bloc. Explanted implants were photographed. Implant shell and capsule sent for histology and microbiological culture. RESULTS: BII symptoms were not shown to correlate with any particular implant type, surface, or fill. There was no significant finding as to duration of implant or location of original surgery. Chronic infection was found in 36% of cases with Propionibacterium acnes the most common finding. Histologically, synoviocyte metaplasia was found in a significantly greater incidence than a matched cohort that had no BII symptoms (P = 0.0164). Eighty-four percent of patients reported partial or complete resolution of BII symptoms on Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. None of the 50 patients would consider having breast implants again. CONCLUSION: The authors believe BII to be a genuine entity worthy of further study. We have identified microbiological and histological abnormalities in a significant number of patients identifying as having BII. A large proportion of these patients have reported resolution or improvement of their symptoms in patient-reported outcomes. Improved microbiology culture techniques may identify a larger proportion of chronic infection, and further investigation of immune phenotypes and toxicology may also be warranted in this group. Wolters Kluwer Health 2020-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7209857/ /pubmed/32440423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002755 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Mark
Ponraja, Ganesa
McLeod, Kevin
Chong, Smathi
Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title_full Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title_fullStr Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title_full_unstemmed Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title_short Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis
title_sort breast implant illness: a biofilm hypothesis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7209857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32440423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002755
work_keys_str_mv AT leemark breastimplantillnessabiofilmhypothesis
AT ponrajaganesa breastimplantillnessabiofilmhypothesis
AT mcleodkevin breastimplantillnessabiofilmhypothesis
AT chongsmathi breastimplantillnessabiofilmhypothesis