Textured Breast Implants: A Closer Look at the Surface Debris Under the Microscope

Abstract

French

Background:

Texturing of breast implants is done to decrease the risk of associated complications. Each manufacturer utilizes unique and at times proprietary techniques to texture the surface of their implants. Little is known about the integrity of this surface structure texturing or the propensity for the surfaces to shed particulate matter. This study aimed to determine the extent of surface particulate shedding from 3 textured implants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are manufactured by Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra.

Methods:

Control images of each of the 3 textured breast implants were obtained with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A liquid adhesive, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer was then applied to the external shell of the implants, allowed to cool, and peeled from the surface. Images of the EVA copolymer were taken with SEM to qualitatively analyze displacement of surface particulate debris. Scanning electron microscopy imaging of the implants was repeated for qualitative comparisons with the control images.

Results:

The peeled copolymer of the 3 implants exhibited surface shedding. Comparison of the 3 breast implants showed the shedding to be greatest for the Allergan implant.

Conclusions:

This study highlights the dynamic surface material properties of the 3 FDA-approved breast implants. Shedding of particulate matter from the implant surfaces can be precipitated by moderate adhesion. Our qualitative examination of SEM findings showed more debris shed from the Allergan breast implants than from the Mentor or Sientra implants.

Keywords

breast implant silicone shedding surface debris textured implant

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Heden

Bone

Murphy

Slicton

Walker

. Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1281–1287.

Maxwell

Gabriel

. The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1 suppl):12S–17S.

Danino

Basmacioglu

Saito

. Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):2047–2052.

Wickman

Johansson

Olenius

Forslind

. A comparison of the capsules around smooth and textured silicone prostheses used for breast reconstruction: a light and electron microscopic study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1993;27(1):15–22.

Barnsley

Sigurdson

Barnsley

. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2182–2190.

Fagrell

Berggren

Tarpila

. Capsular contracture around saline-filled fine textured and smooth mammary implants: a prospective 7.5-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):2108–2112.

Hakelius

Ohlsen

. Tendency to capsular contracture around smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants: a five-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(6):1566–1569.

Barr

Hill

Bayat

. Current implant surface technology: an examination of their nanostructure and their influence on fibroblast alignment and biocompatibility. Eplasty. 2009;9:e22.

Thuesen

Siim

Christensen

Schroder

. Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with the tissue expansion technique: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone breast prostheses. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29(1):9–13.

10.

Danino

Rocher

Blanchet-Bardon

Revol

Servant

. A scanning electron microscopy study of the surface of porous-textured breast implants and their capsules: description of the “Velcro” effect of porous-textured breast prostheses [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2001;46(1):23–30.