Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 63–68 | Cite as

Clinicopathologic correlations in pseudocapsule formation after breast augmentation

  • Henry Jenny
  • Jiri Smahel


In 2,000 patients who underwent augmentation mammoplasties with different types of prostheses, the thickness of the pseudocapsules around gel-filled implants was greater than that of the pseudocapsules forming around inflatable implants. This observation was corroborated by an independent histologic study. Deposition of liquid silicone into the pseudocapsules as well as the adjacent brest tissue and migration into capillaries was demonstrated. Until an impermeable shell or a non-transgressive gel can be manufactured, gel-filled implants should not be used.

Key words

Breast augmentation Pseudocapsule formation Gel-filled implants Inflatable implants Liquid silicone 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aptekar RG, Davie JM, Cattell HS: Foreign body reaction of silicone rubber. Complication of a finger joint implant. Clin Orthop98:231, 1974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker DE, Retsky MI, Schultz S: “Bleeding” of silicone bag-gel breast implants, and its clinical relation to fibrous capsule reaction. Plast Reconstr Surg61:836, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergman RB, van der Ende AE: Exudation of silicone through the envelope of gel filled breast prostheses: an in vitro study. Br J Plast Surg32:31, 1979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christie AJ, Weinberger KA, Dietrich M: Silicone lymphadenopathy and synovitis. Complication of silicone elastomer finger joint prostheses. JAMA237:1463, 1977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domanskis EJ, Owsley JQ: Histological investigation of the etiology of capsule contracture following augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg58:689, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenny, H: Six hundred breast biopsies and pathologies. Presented to the International College of Surgeons in Milan, Italy, June 23, 1977Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenny H: Eight year experience of eight hundred augmentation mammaplasties. Presented in São Paulo, Brazil, April, 1976Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jenny H: Areolar approach to augmentation mammaplasty;also Catastrophic results following silicone injections. Presented to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in Rio de Janeiro, February, 1972Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudolph R, Abraham J, Vecchione T, Guber S, Woodward M: Myofibroblasts and free silicone around breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg62:185, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulte R: Personal communication, 1969Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smahel J: Histology of the capsules causing constrictive fibrosis around breast implants. Br J Plast Surg30:324, 1977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smahel J: Foreign material in the capsules around breast prostheses and cellular reaction to it. Br J Plast Surg (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wickham MG, Rudolph R, Abraham JL: Silicone identification in prosthesis associated fibrous capsules. Science199:437, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilflingseder P, Propst A, Mikuz G: Constrictive fibrosis following silicone implants in mammary augmentation. Chir Plast (Berl.)2:215, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilflingseder P, Propst A, Mikuz G, Hoinkes G: Constrictive fibrosis post augmentation mammaplasty. Transactions of the 6th International Congress of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Paris, Masson, 1976, pp. 535–538Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Jenny
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiri Smahel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Laboratory of the Second Surgical ClinicUniversity HospitalZurich
  2. 2.Palm Springs

Personalised recommendations