Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 3;5(10):e2236519.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36519.

Prevalence of Local Postoperative Complications and Breast Implant Illness in Women With Breast Implants

Annemiek S Lieffering  1   2 , Juliëtte E Hommes  3   4 , Lotte Ramerman  1 , Hinne A Rakhorst  5 , Marc A M Mureau  6 , Robert A Verheij  1   2 , René R W J van der Hulst  3   4
Affiliations

Prevalence of Local Postoperative Complications and Breast Implant Illness in Women With Breast Implants

Annemiek S Lieffering et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: It is unknown how often breast implant illness (BII) is the indication for revision in women with silicone breast implants.

Objective: To examine how often women with silicone breast implants have their implants explanted or replaced because of BII compared with local postoperative complications.

Design, setting, and participants: A legacy cohort study on breast implant revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and a prospective cohort study on breast implantation and revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (with follow-up until December 31, 2020). Data were obtained from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to August 2022.

Exposures: Silicone breast implant.

Main outcomes and measures: Breast implant revision with the indication BII or local postoperative complications.

Results: All 12 882 cosmetic breast implants (6667 women; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.7] years) and 2945 reconstructive breast implants (2139 women, mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.3] years) in the legacy cohort and all 47 564 cosmetic breast implants (24 120 women, mean [SD] age, 32.3 [9.7] years) and 5928 reconstructive breast implants (4688 women, mean [SD] age, 50.9 [11.5] years) in the prospective cohort were included for analysis. In the prospective cohort, 739 cosmetic breast implants (1.6%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.8 (0.9-3.1) years, and 697 reconstructive breast implants (11.8%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.1 (0.5-1.9) years. BII was registered as the reason for revision in 35 cosmetic revisions (4.7%) and 5 reconstructive revisions (0.7%) in the prospective cohort, corresponding to 0.1% of the inserted implants. In the legacy cohort, 536 cosmetic revisions (4.2%) and 80 reconstructive breast implant revisions (2.7%) were performed because of BII.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of women with silicone breast implants, BII was an uncommon indication for revision compared with local complications, both in the short and long term. In contrast to the increasing public interest in BII, these results showed that local complications are a far more common reason for breast implant revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hommes reported receiving grants from Ministry of Health (the Netherlands) and ZonMW outside the submitted work; Dr Hommes also reported being the secretary of the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) and being a plastic surgeon who specializes in reconstructive and hand surgery. Dr Mureau reported receiving grants from Polytech Health & Aesthetics outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. McCarthy CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. . The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(1):218-223. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318254b3bc - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alderman A, Pusic A, Murphy DK. Prospective analysis of primary breast augmentation on body image using the BREAST-Q: results from a nationwide study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(6):954e-960e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002183 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dean NR, Crittenden T. A five year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: a cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(11):1469-1477. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2016.08.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Spear SL, Murphy DK; Allergan Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Core Clinical Study Group . Natrelle round silicone breast implants: Core Study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(6):1354-1361. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000021 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, Murphy DK. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(2):145-155. doi:10.1093/asj/sju084 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types