Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 227–230 | Cite as

Response to subdermal implantation of textured microimplants in humans

  • Otis Allen
Article

Abstract

In lieu of the problems involved with the use of foreign substances such as ivory, paraffin, liquid silicone, and collagen, a new subcutaneous injectable device has been developed. This material—Bioplastique—has been developed in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of previous augmentation materials, most notably absorption, migration, and immunologic rejection. This article presents a longitudinal study of the use of this new microimplant.

Key words

Bioplastique Microimplantation Human studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beisang AA: Mammalian response to subdermal implantation of textured microimplants. Proc East Grinstead Symp Minimally Invasive Injection Surgery, E. Grinstead, England, March 1990Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boros DL: Granulomatous inflammations. Prog Allergy 24:212, 1978Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christie AJ et al: Silicone lymphadenopathy and synovitis: Complications of silicone elastomer finger joint prostheses. J Am Med Assoc 237:1463, 1977Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ersek RA: Prostheses for breast augmentation: Progress in materials and the design of these implants continues. Travis County Med Soc J 8–10, May 1989Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ersek RA, Beisang AA III: Bioplastique: A new textured polymer microparticle promises permanence in soft-tissue augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(4):693–702, April 1991Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fantone JC, Ward PA: Inflammation. In: Rubin E, Farber JL (eds): Pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1988, p 61Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hausner RJ, Schoen FJ, Pierson KK: Foreign body reaction to silicone gel in axillary lymph nodes after an augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 62:381–384, 1978Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heggers JP: Immunologic responses to silicone implants: Fact or fiction? Proc ASPRS 59th Ann Scientific Meeting, Boston, MA, October 1990Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinderer UT, Escalona J: Dermal and subdermal tissue filling with fetal connective tissue and cartilage, collagen and silicone: Experimental study in the pig compared with clinical results. A new technique of dermis mini-autograft injections. Aesth Plast Surg 14:239–248, 1990Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kircher T: Silicone lymphadenopathy: A complication of silicone elastomer finger joint prostheses. Human Pathol 11:243, 1980Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krizek TJ: The normal body defenses against foreign implants. In: Rubin LIZ (ed): Biomaterials in Reconstructive Surgery. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1983, p 12Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peacock EE, Wound Repair, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1984Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Travis WE, Balogh K, Abraham JL: Silicone granulomas: Report of three cases and review of the literature. Human Pathol 16:19, 1985Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schedler TR: ASPRS response to media coverage of letter to FDA from Public Citizen, November 1988Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spector WG, Lykke AWJ: The cellular evolution of inflamamatory granulomata. J Patol Bact 92:163, 1966Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vilar-Sancho B: An old story: An ivory nasal implant. Aesth Plast Surg 11:157, 1987Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson RA, Gartner WS: Teflon granuloma mimicking a thyroid tumor. Diag Cytopathol 3:156, 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Otis Allen
    • 1
  1. 1.BloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations