Management of Symptomatic Patients with Textured Implants
- PMID: 33890882
- DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008047
Management of Symptomatic Patients with Textured Implants
Abstract
Proper management of symptomatic textured implant patients is critical to identify and treat associated oncologic disease. Textured surface breast implants were first introduced more than 50 years ago in an effort to decrease high rates of capsular contracture and implant malposition observed with first-generation smooth surface breast implants. Textured implants were dominant over smooth devices in the United States in the late 1990s, but they fell out of favor for newer-generation smooth implants, while texture remained the dominant selling implants worldwide until recently. A class I device recall by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 precipitated a removal of the highest selling implant worldwide, Allergan Biocell, due to a disproportionately increased risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Operative strategies, such as bacterial control at the time of textured implant insertion, have not been credibly shown to affect or prevent the future development of BIA-ALCL. BIA-ALCL patients require complete surgical excision of their disease, whereas textured implant patients who are otherwise asymptomatic do not require surgical removal. For suspicious cases, diagnostic testing with CD30 immunohistochemistry should be performed before any surgical intervention. Capsules are evaluated with 12 strategic regional biopsies in a standardized approach. If surgeons are revising or exchanging textured implants, they may reasonably consider a total capsulectomy, though this is not advocated by the Food and Drug Administration or national societies, and has not been shown to mitigate future risk of BIA-ALCL. The purpose of this article is to review data on and outcomes for textured surface implants, disease-associated risk, and the management strategy for revisionary surgery and device surveillance.
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure:The authors have no associations or financial disclosures to report that create a conflict of interest with the information presented in this article. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center participates in clinical trials for Motiva US Safety Trial (Establishment Labs) and Mentor Corporation.
References
-
- Ashley FL. Further studies on the natural-Y breast prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972;49:414–419.
-
- Collett DJ, Rakhorst H, Lennox P, et al. Current risk estimate of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in textured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3S):30S–40S.
-
- Benoit FM. Degradation of polyurethane foams used in the Même breast implant. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;27:1341–1348.
-
- Munhoz AM, Clemens MW, Nahabedian MY. Breast implant surfaces and their impact on current practices: where we are now and where are we going? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2466.
-
- Barr S, Hill EW, Bayat A. Functional biocompatibility testing of silicone breast implants and a novel classification system based on surface roughness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;75:75–81.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical