History of breast implants: Back to the future
- PMID: 35434240
- PMCID: PMC9006741
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2022.02.004
History of breast implants: Back to the future
Abstract
Modern breast implants are a staple of plastic surgery, finding uses in esthetic and reconstructive procedures. Their history began in the 1960s, with the first generation of smooth devices with thick silicone elastomer, thick silicone gel, and Dacron patches on the back. They presented hard consistency, high capsular contracture rates and the patches increased the risk of rupture. In the same decade, polyurethane coating of implants was implemented. A second generation was introduced in the 1970s with a thinner shell, less viscous gel filler and no patches, but increased silicone bleed-through and rupture rates. The third generation, in the early 1980s, featured implants with a thicker multilayered elastomer shell reinforced with silica to reduce rupture risk and prevent silicone bleed-through. A fourth generation from the late 1980s combined thick outer elastomer shells, more cohesive gel filler, and implemented for the first-time outer shell texturing. In the early 1990s, the fifth generation of devices pioneered an anatomical shape with highly cohesive form-stable gel filler and a rough outer shell surface. Surface texturing was hampered by the discovery of Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and its link with textured devices. From the 2010s, we have the era of the sixth generation of implants, featuring innovations regarding the surface, with biomimetic surfaces, more resistant shells and variations in gel consistency. The road to innovation comprises setbacks such as the FDA moratorium in 1992, the PIP scandal, the Silimed CE mark temporary suspension and the FDA-requested voluntary recall of the Allergan BIOCELL implants.
Keywords: BIA-ALCL; Breast implant history; Breast implants; Implant design; Silicone implants.
© 2022 The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The Corresponding author would like to disclose that he received reimbursements for travel/lodgment expenses from ICEAG in 2015 and SCHEER-WG in 2019, 2020 and 2021, is a member of Notified Body 0373, part of the Superior Institute of Health, carrying out CE Mark certification activities for the Italian Ministry of Health for the year 2021, and Consultant for Bellaseno GmbH for the year 2021 and 2022. He has no ownerships or investments to disclose. All other authors hereby certify, that to the best of their knowledge no financial support or benefits has been received, neither by themselves directly, nor by any member of their immediate family or any individual or entity with whom or with which they may have a significant relationship from any commercial source which is related directly or indirectly to the scientific work which is reported on in the article. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.
References
-
- International Organization for Standardization. 2018. ISO 14607:2018(en) - non-active surgical implants — mammary implants — particular requirements. [online] Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14607:ed-3:v2:en [Accessed 6 January 2022].
-
- Barr S., Hill E.W., Bayat A. Functional biocompatibility testing of silicone breast implants and a novel classification system based on surface roughness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;5:75–81. Nov; 7. - PubMed
-
- Atlan M., Nuti G., Wang H., Decker S., Perry T. Breast implant surface texture impacts host tissue response. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018:377–385. Dec; 88. - PubMed
-
- Jones P., Mempin M., Hu H., et al. The functional influence of breast implant outer shell morphology on bacterial attachment and growth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(4):837–849. - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources