Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 507–513 | Cite as

Poly Implant Prothèse and Rofil Substandard Breast Implant Explantations from a Large German Single Centre from 2011 to 2014: A Comparative Study

  • Moritz Billner
  • Anna Wirthmann
  • Simon Reif
  • Ulrich M. Rieger
Original Article Breast

Abstract

Background

Following a Europe-wide scandal, substandard breast implants containing silicone for industry purposes produced by Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP&Rofil) were explanted due to its potential health risks.

Objective

We investigated whether these implants actually imposed a threat to patients’ health.

Methods

In this retrospective single-centre case–control study, we compared patients with breast augmentation receiving implant explantation (01/2011–01/2015). Data were collected retrospectively from the patients’ records. Patients were split into two groups: PIP&Rofil and implants of other manufacturers.

Results

A total of 307 patients with 495 breast implants met the inclusion criteria, 64 patients with 115 PIP&Rofil implants and 243 patients with 380 implants of other manufacturers. Comparison of descriptive statistics between the two groups revealed that for a variety of indicators (e.g. patient age, breast cancer, aesthetic vs. reconstructive indication, implant volume, submuscular vs. subglandular implant position) PIP implants differ from non-PIP implant patients. Raw mean comparison showed higher rupture rates for non-PIP implants, 28.42 % (PIP 23.48 %). However, when controlling for implant indwelling time, PIP implants had shown higher rupture rates. Both groups had similar rates of capsular contracture (PIP: 71.30 %, Others: 72.63 %) with different distribution of Baker Scores (Baker 2/3/4: PIP 5/8/13 and non-PIP 3/24/135).

Conclusion

Concerning patient symptoms, we did not find any objective reason to justify implant explantation of PIP&Rofil implants as a solely precautionary measure. As PIP&Rofil implants showed shorter retention periods until rupture and ruptured implants can cause symptoms or health problems, PIP&Rofil implants should be regularly monitored and explanted if there is evidence of rupture.

Level of Evidence III

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

Keywords

PIP implants Silicone Breast implants Implant rupture Clinical findings Capsular contracture 

References

  1. 1.
    SCENIHR (2014) The safety of Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) silicone breast implants: update of the opinion of February 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_043.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2016
  2. 2.
    afssaps Topical report PIP silicone gel pre-filled implants. http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/39acdab927235584ccfa340e4a9d3896.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2015
  3. 3.
    Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (2010) Silikongel-gefüllte Brustimplantate des Herstellers Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Pressemitteilung 04/10. http://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/Medizinprodukte/DE/Silikon_Brustimplantate_PIP.html. Accessed 9 June 2016
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    BfArM (2014) Brustimplantate “PIP” und “Rofil”: Risiken, Informationen, Empfehlungen. http://www.bfarm.de/DE/Medizinprodukte/risikoerfassung/empfehlungen/PIP/_node.html. Accessed 2 June 2015
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    afssaps Silicone based filling gel breast implants from Poly Implant Prothèse Company tests results. http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/38fbe37bdd1897eb09de4f892a317c14.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2016
  8. 8.
    (2015) PIP breast implants: update on TGA testing of PIP breast implants. https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/pip-breast-implants-update-tga-testing-pip-breast-implants. Accessed 9 June 2015
  9. 9.
    Berry MG, Stanek JJ (2013) PIP implant biodurability: a post-publicity update. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(9):1174–1181. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.04.050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maijers MC, Niessen FB (2012) Prevalence of rupture in poly implant Prothèse silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(6):1372–1378. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824f0108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quaba O, Quaba A (2013) PIP silicone breast implants: rupture rates based on the explantation of 676 implants in a single surgeon series. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(9):1182–1187. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spear SL, Murphy DK (2014) Natrelle round silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(6):1354–1361. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wazir U, Kasem A, Mokbel K (2015) The clinical implications of poly implant prothèse breast implants: an overview. Arch Plast Surg 42(1):4–10. doi:10.5999/aps.2015.42.1.4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oulharj S, Pauchot J, Tropet Y (2014) PIP breast implant removal: a study of 828 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(3):302–307. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorczyca DP (1994) MR imaging of breast implants. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2(4):659–672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berg WA, Caskey CI, Hamper UM et al (1995) Single- and double- lumen silicone breast implant integrity: prospective evaluation of MR and US criteria. Radiology 197(1):45–52. doi:10.1148/radiology.197.1.7568852 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ikeda DM, Borofsky HB, Herfkens RJ et al (1999) Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):2054–2062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cher DJ, Conwell JA, Mandel JS (2001) MRI for detecting silicone breast implant rupture: meta-analysis and implications. Ann Plast Surg 47(4):367–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Department of Health and NHS Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implants: final report of the expert group. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214975/dh_134657.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2015
  20. 20.
    NHS PIP breast implants-Implant rupture-NHS choices. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Breast-implants/Pages/Warning-signs.aspx. Accessed 8 June 2015
  21. 21.
    Pittet B, Montandon D, Pittet D (2005) Infection in breast implants. Lancet Infect Dis 5(2):94–106. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(05)01281-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rieger UM, Mesina J, Kalbermatten DF et al (2013) Bacterial biofilms and capsular contracture in patients with breast implants. Br J Surg 100(6):768–774. doi:10.1002/bjs.9084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schreml S, Heine N, Eisenmann-Klein M et al (2007) Bacterial colonization is of major relevance for high-grade capsular contracture after augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 59(2):126–130. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000252714.72161.4a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Godwin Y, Duncan RT, Feig C et al (2014) Soft, Brown Rupture: clinical signs and symptoms associated with ruptured PIP breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2(11):e249. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000212 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE (2006) Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(7):2182–2190. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000218184.47372.d5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hakelius L, Ohlsén L (1992) A clinical comparison of the tendency to capsular contracture between smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 90(2):247–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hakelius L, Ohlsén L (1997) Tendency to capsular contracture around smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants: a five-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 100(6):1566–1569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swarts E, Kop AM, Nilasaroya A et al (2013) Rupture of poly implant prothèse silicone breast implants: an implant retrieval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(4):480e–489e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182818a00 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zambacos GJ, Molnar C, Mandrekas AD (2013) Silicone lymphadenopathy after breast augmentation: case reports, review of the literature, and current thoughts. Aesthet Plast Surg 37(2):278–289. doi:10.1007/s00266-012-0025-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wyatt LE, Sinow JD, Wollman JS et al (1998) The influence of time on human breast capsule histology: smooth and textured silicone-surfaced implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(6):1922–1931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ko CY, Ahn CY, Ko J et al (1996) Capsular synovial metaplasia as a common response to both textured and smooth implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(7):1427–1433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moritz Billner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna Wirthmann
    • 1
  • Simon Reif
    • 3
  • Ulrich M. Rieger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plastic & Aesthetic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus HospitalAcademic Teaching Hospital of the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe UniversityFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Department of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Burn Unit, Klinikum Nuremberg HospitalParacelsus Medical University (PMU)NurembergGermany
  3. 3.University of Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations