Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Incidence of Device Failure and Capsular Contracture: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

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

Abstract

Background

The Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom issued a Medical Device Alert (MDA/2010/025) through a press release on 31 March 2010 for clinicians not to use the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) implant.

Methods

Data were collected to analyze PIP and non-PIP implant failures as well as rates of capsular contracture between August 2008 and August 2012. Relevant data were retrieved for 143 patients with PIP (group A) and non-PIP (group B) implants.

Results

Group A (PIP): A total of 65 patients had PIP implants removed. The mean patient age was 37.1 ± 8.1 years (range 24–53 years). The mean duration of the implant was 7.2 ± 2.5 years (range 2–12 years), and the mean preoperative implant size was 327.1 ± 69.6 ml (range 255–495 ml). Of the implants in 65 patients, 18 (27.7 %) were damaged, and of the 64 patients with recorded capsular contractures, 16 (25 %) presented with grades 3 and 4 capsular contractures. Group B (non-PIP): A total of 79 patients had non-PIP implants removed. The mean patient age was 34.4 ± 8.0 years (range 19–54 years). The mean implantation time was 5.8 ± 3.9 years (range 0.2–26 years), and the mean preoperative implant size was 348.2 ± 79.0 ml (range 175–555 ml). Of the 79 patients, 6 had ruptured implants (7.6 %) and 21 (26.6 %) presented with grades 3 and 4 capsular contractures. There were no statistically significant differences in mean patient age (p = 0.046), preoperative size of the implants (p = 0.095), duration of the implantation (p = 0.08), or grades 3 and 4 capsular contractures (p = 0.830). The incidence of implant rupture was significantly higher with the PIP implants than with the non-PIP implants (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

The PIP implants were more prone to rupture than the other implants, although the incidence of clinical capsular contracture (grades 3 and 4) was not increased.

Level of Evidence IV

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

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khan UD (2008) Lt unilateral breast autoinflation and intraprosthetic collection of sterile pus: an unusual operative finding of silicone gel bleed with silicone lymphadenitis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:684–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Khan UD (2009) Breast autoinflation with sterile pus as a marker of implant rupture: single-stage treatment and outcome for five consecutive cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:58–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Khan UD (2009) Mondor’s disease: a review of the literature and a case report. Aesthetic Surg J 29:209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan UD (2010) Implant rupture and antegrade excision of axillary siliconoma through implant pocket. A case report and literature search. J Muhammad Med Coll 1:56–60

    Google Scholar 

  5. Medical Device Alert (2010). http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dts-bs/documents/medicaldevicealert/con076500.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2010

  6. Khan UD (2010) PIP implants investigated. Cosmetic Surg Aesth Guide 12:128–129

    Google Scholar 

  7. Poly implant prothèse (PIP) (2012) Breast implants: final report of the expert group. http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/06/pip-report/. Accessed 18 Jan 2012

  8. Bomdurant S, Ernster V, Herdman R (1999) Safety of silicon breast implants: Report of the committee on the safety of silicon breast implants (IOM). National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brandon HJ, Taylor ML, Powell TE, Walker PS (2007) Microscopy analysis of breast implant rupture caused by surgical instrument damage. Aesthetic Surg J 27:239–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brandon HJ, Young VL, Jerina KL, Wolf CJ (2001) Scanning electron microscopy characterization of surgical instrument damage to breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:52–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Spear SL (1999) Breast implant technology: what can we count on? Aesthetic Surg J 19:347–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marotta J, Goldberg EP, Habel MB, Amery DP, Martin PJ, Urbaniak DJ, Widenhouse CW (2002) Silicon gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prosthesis and meta-analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg 49:227–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holmich LR, Friis S, Fryzek JP, Vejborg IM, Conrad C, Sletting S, Kjoller K, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH (2003) Incidence of silicon breast implant rupture. Arch Surg 138:801–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Update on the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants (FDA June 2011). http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants. Accessed 22 Jun 2011

  15. Spear LS, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:44–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan UD (2007) Muscle-splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:553–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using muscle-splitting biplane technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:353–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan UD (2012) High transverse capsuloplasty for the correction of malpositioned implants following augmentation mammoplasty in partial submuscular plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:590–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khan UD (2012) Secondary augmentation mammoplasties and periprosthetic infection: a three-year retrospective review of 92 secondary mammoplasties performed by a single surgeon. Aesthetic Surg J 32:465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobson PH et al (2001) Capsular contracture after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 47:357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infection: comparative analysis of 1,628 primary augmentation mammoplasties to assess the role and efficacy of length of antibiotic prophylaxis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pajkos A, Deva AK, Vickery K, Cope C, Chang L, Cossart YE (2003) Detection of subclinical infections in significant breast implant capsules (abstract). Plast Reconstructr Surg 111:1605–1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The statistical analysis was performed by Dr. Aamir Omair, Biostatistician in the Department of Medical Education at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reshape House, 2-4 High Street, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QR, UK

    Umar Daraz Khan

Authors
  1. Umar Daraz Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umar Daraz Khan.

Additional information

International Master Course on Aging Skin 6/10/12/Hong Kong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khan, U.D. Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Incidence of Device Failure and Capsular Contracture: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis. Aesth Plast Surg 37, 906–913 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0157-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0157-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation