Abstract
Polyacrylamide gel has been used for soft tissue augmentation outside the United States since 1997. Despite some adverse events, the long duration of the augmentation and the tangible filling effect has increased its use in Asia and the Middle East. In this era of mesotherapy and fillers, patients are more likely than ever to have additional injections. The response of old polyacrylamide gel implant sites to puncture or repeated injection has not been reported previously. A total of 12 cases were treated for acute inflammation after puncture of polyacrylamide gel implants with injection needles or minor surgical intervention. The duration of augmentation after the initial injection was from 6 months to 4 years. Acute inflammation followed a certain pattern. Patients presented with pain, swelling, redness, and significant induration after puncture of the dormant implant. Resolution was achieved gradually with drainage, empirical antibiotics, and antiinflammatory agents in 1 to 2 weeks. Cultures of removed gel were negative. The cause of inflammation was difficult to define, but a definite link to puncture of the implant could be found in all patients. Puncture of the implant violates the tissue–implant barrier and induces inflammation or introduces bacteria that are not detectable in culture but may contribute to inflammation in the presence of the filler material. Further research is needed to assess the inflammation observed with repeated puncture of old polyacrylamide gel implants and its implications. In the meantime, patients should be warned about the possibility of inflammation in the case of puncture or surgery to the implant site, even years after the polyacrylamide gel injection.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Breiting V, Aasted A, Jorgensen A, et al. (2004) A study on patients treated with polyacrylamide hydrogel injection for facial corrections. Aesth Plast Surg 28:45–53
von Buelow S, Pallua N (2006) Efficacy and safety of polyacrylamide hydrogel for facial soft tissue augmentation in a 2-year follow-up: A prospective multicenter study for evaluation of safety and aesthetic results in 101 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Suppl):85S–91S
Amin SP, Marmur ES, Goldberg DJ (2004) Complications from injectable polyacrylamide gel: A new nonbiodegradable soft tissue filler. Dermatol Surg 30(12 pt 2):1507–1509
Kawamura JY, Domaneschi C, Migliari DA, et al. (2005) Foreign body reactions to skin filler: A case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 101:469–471
Cheng N, Wang Y, Wang J, et al. (2002) Complications of breast augmentation with injected hydrophilic polyacrylamide gel. Aesth Plast Surg 26:375–382
Christensen LH, Breiting VB, Asted A, et al. (2003) Long-term effects of polyacrylamide hydrogel on human breast tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:1883–1890
Cheng N-X, Xu S-L, Deng H, et al. (2006) Migration of implants: A problem with injectable polyacrylamide gel in aesthetic plastic surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 30:215–225
Fernandez-Cossio S, Castano-Oreja MT (2006) Biocompatibility of two novel dermal fillers: Histological evaluation of implants of a hyaluronic acid filler and a polyacrylamide filler. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1789–1796
de Cassia Novaes W, Berg A (2003) Experiences with a new nonbiodegradable hydrogel (Aquamid): A pilot study. Aesth Plast Surg 27:376
Lemperle G, Morhenn V, Charrier U (2003) Human histology and persistence of various injectable filler substances for soft tissue augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 27:354–366
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
El-Shafey, ES.I. Complications from Repeated Injection or Puncture of Old Polyacrylamide Gel Implant Sites: Case Reports. Aesth Plast Surg 32, 162–165 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9024-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9024-7