Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The In Vivo Pericapsular Tissue Response to Modern Polyurethane Breast Implants

  • Original Article
  • Breast
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Polyurethane breast implants were first introduced by Ashley (Plast Reconstr Surg 45:421–424, 1970), with the intention of trying to reduce the high incidence of capsular contracture associated with smooth shelled, high gel bleed, silicone breast implants. The sterilization of the polyurethane foam in the early days was questionable. More recently, ethylene oxide (ETO)-sterilized polyurethane has been used in the manufacturing process and this has been shown to reduce the incidence of biofilm. The improved method of attachment of polyurethane onto the underlying high cohesive gel, barrier shell layered, silicone breast implants also encourages bio-integration. Polyurethane covered, cohesive gel, silicone implants have also been shown to reduce the incidence of other problems commonly associated with smooth or textured silicone implants, especially with reference to displacement, capsular contracture, seroma, reoperation, biofilm and implant rupture. Since the introduction of the conical polyurethane implant (Silimed, Brazil) into the United Kingdom in 2009 (Eurosurgical, UK), we have had the opportunity to review histology taken from the capsules of polyurethane implants in three women ranging from a few months to over 3 years after implantation. All implants had been inserted into virgin subfascial, extra-pectoral planes. The results add to the important previously described histological findings of Bassetto et al. (Aesthet Plast Surg 34:481–485, 2010). Five distinct layers are identified and reasons for the development of each layer are discussed. Breast capsule around polyurethane implants, in situ for fifteen and 20 years, has recently been obtained and analysed in Brazil, and the histology has been incorporated into this study. After 20 years, the polyurethane is almost undetectable and capsular contracture may appear. These findings contribute to our understanding of polyurethane implant safety, and give reasoning for a significant reduction in clinical capsular contracture rate, up to 10 years after implantation, compared to contemporary silicone implants. A more permanent matrix equivalent to polyurethane may be the solution for reducing long-term capsular contracture.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ashley FL (1970) A new type of breast prosthesis; preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 45:421–424

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams WP Jr (2009) Capsular contracture: what is it? How can it be prevented and managed? Clin Plast Surg 36:119–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wixtrom RN, Stutman RL, Burke RM, Mahoney BS, Codner MA (2012) Risk of breast implant bacterial contamination from endogenous breast flora, prevention with nipple shields, and implications for biofilm formation. Aesthet Surg J 32(8):956–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dancey A, Nassimizadeh A, Levick P (2012) Capsular contracture: what are the risk factors? A 14 year series of 1400 consecutive augmentations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(2):213–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hester TR (1998) The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: facts and fiction. Perspect Plast Surg 2:135

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gasperoni C, Salgarello M, Gargani G (1992) Polyurethane-covered mammary implants: a 12-year experience. Ann Plast Surg 29:303–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleming D (2012) Polyurethane foam breast implants. In: Peters W, Brandon H, Jerina KL, Wolf C, Young VL (eds) Biomaterials in plastic surgery: breast implants. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. De la Pena-Salcedo JA, Soto-Miranda MA, Lopez-Salguero JF (2012) Back to the future: a 15 year experience with polyurethane foam-covered breast implants using the partial sub-fascial technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:331–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bassetto F, Scarpa C, Caccialanza E, Montesco MC, Magnani P (2010) Histological features of periprosthetic mammary capsules: silicone vs. polyurethane. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:481–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vasquez G, Pellon A (2007) Polyurethane: coated silicone gel breast implants used for 18 years. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:330–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart AM, Lechowicz MJ, Peters KK, Holden J, Carlson GW (2014) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: report of 2 cases and review of the literature. Aesthet Surg J 34(6):884–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Georgeu GA, Frame JD, Frame JD (2013) Conical polyurethane implants: an uplifting augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 33(8):1116–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barr S, Hill E, Bayat A (2009) Current implant surface technology: an examination of their nanostructure and their influence on fibroblast alignment and biocompatibility. Eplasty. www.eplasty.com

  14. Frame JD (2014) Commentary on: breast implants and the risk of breast cancer : a meta-analysis on cohort studies. Aesthet Surg J 2015 35(1):63–65. doi: 10/1093/asj/sju093

  15. Reisman NR (2014) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: what we can do. Aesthet Surg J 34:956–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rupani A, Kamel D, Frame JD (2015) Lymphomas associated with breast implants: a review of the literature. Aesthet Surg J 35:533–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (2014) Medical Devices Alert, Department of Health’s Central Alerting System (CAS)

  18. Wyatt LE, Sinow JD, Wollman JS, Sami DA, Miller TA (1998) The influence of time on human breast implant capsule histology: smooth and textured silicone surfaced implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(6):1922–1931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hwang K, Sim HB, Huan F (2010) Myofibroblasts and capsular tissue tension in breast capsular contracture. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:716–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Castel N, Soon-Sutton T, Deptula P, Flaherty A, Don Parsa F (2015) Polyurethane-coated breast implants revisited: a 30-year follow-up. Arch Plast Surg 42(2):186–193

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel JD, Colton E, Ebert M, Anderson JM (2012) Gene expression during S epidermidis biofilm formation on biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res A 100(11):2863–2869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank James Frame (Jnr) and David Head for assisting with the collation of the histology and with the text. We also thank Dr Ricardo (Histopathologist, Sao Paulo) for providing special histology stain samples of capsules. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Disclosures

JDF has lectured and demonstrated live breast augmentation surgery in many countries over the past 20 years. He does not receive any financial reward and in particular he is not a salaried consultant to any company. Travel and accommodation for invitational Plastic Surgery meetings have been organized on his behalf by Mentor, McGhan and Silimed over the past 30 years. Marcelo Olivan and James Frame have developed a website for polyurethane breast implant users “www.polyurethaneimplants.org”. Henrique Cintra educates and demonstrates using polyurethane implants in Brazil and presented his experience at ISAPS in 2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Frame.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The other authors declare no other conflict of interest and there have been no financial arrangements or inducements received, or promised, to investigate and write this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frame, J., Kamel, D., Olivan, M. et al. The In Vivo Pericapsular Tissue Response to Modern Polyurethane Breast Implants. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 713–723 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0550-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0550-4

Keywords

Navigation