Continuing Education Activity

Breast implant rupture represents a significant complication following breast augmentation or reconstruction, occurring when saline or silicone implants fail, leading to leakage of their contents. This condition affects 10% to 15% of implants within 10 to 15 years, with risk increasing with implant age, type, and surgical factors. Saline implant ruptures typically present with visible deflation, causing breast asymmetry, while silicone implant ruptures are often silent, detectable only through imaging like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound. Symptoms may include pain, swelling, or changes in breast shape, though silent ruptures can remain asymptomatic, delaying diagnosis. Risk factors include implant age (12–20 year lifespan), trauma, or manufacturing defects. Complications involve capsular contracture, silicone migration, or inflammation, impacting the patient's quality of life. Early detection through clinical evaluation and imaging, followed by surgical removal or replacement, is critical to prevent adverse outcomes, particularly in reconstruction patients post-mastectomy.

This continuing education enhances clinicians’ competence in diagnosing and managing breast implant rupture by reviewing its pathophysiology, incidence, and risk factors, emphasizing the 12–20 year implant lifespan. Clinicians learn to differentiate saline versus silicone rupture presentations, with saline causing noticeable deflation and silicone requiring MRI for detection. The course covers best practices for diagnostic imaging, including MRI and ultrasound, and outlines surgical (implant removal/replacement) and nonsurgical management strategies. Clinicians gain skills in patient counseling and shared decision-making to tailor treatment plans, improving patient satisfaction and outcomes. Interprofessional collaboration with radiologists, surgeons, nurses, and counselors ensures accurate diagnosis via imaging, coordinated surgical planning, and comprehensive patient support. This team approach reduces diagnostic delays, enhances treatment efficacy, and supports informed decision-making, ultimately minimizing complications and optimizing recovery for patients with breast implant rupture.

Objectives:

• Assess patient risk profiles, including implant age and history of trauma, to prioritize monitoring for breast implant rupture.
• Identify appropriate imaging modalities for accurate diagnosis of suspected breast implant ruptures.
• Apply advanced imaging protocols, such as high-resolution MRI, to confirm breast implant rupture and guide surgical planning for optimal patient outcomes.
• Select interprofessional team strategies for improving care coordination and communication to advance the evaluation and management of breast implant rupture and optimize clinical outcomes. 

Introduction

Breast augmentation is a surgical procedure where fat transfer, breast implants (saline or silicone), or both are used within the native breast to increase size and projection. The implants are placed in a subglandular or subpectoral position. Breast augmentation is performed for various reasons, including cosmetic augmentation, congenital malformations, or reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast augmentation is among the most commonly performed cosmetic surgical procedures in the United States, with an estimated 3.5 million individuals currently living with breast implants. One possible complication of this procedure is implant rupture, which can occur in different ways. There are many varieties of saline and silicone implants, and any can potentially rupture. When evaluating a patient for a potential implant rupture, a clinician needs to know when the implant(s) were placed and the type of implant(s) placed.

When an implant is placed, the body creates a scar around the implant, a fibrous capsule. This process is a normal reaction to the foreign implant. An implant rupture contained within the fibrous capsule is referred to as an intracapsular rupture, while the extravasation of silicone outside of the fibrous capsule is called an extracapsular rupture. Saline implant rupture results in the extravasation of a simple isotonic saline solution that is harmless and will be reabsorbed by the body over time. Silicone implant rupture, however, can lead to further complications, though no actual health risks have been discovered in studies performed. An extracapsular rupture results in silicone gel extravasating into the surrounding tissues, often in an infiltrative pattern that can lead to significant local tissue reaction and scar formation.

One important point is that there cannot be an extracapsular rupture without an intracapsular rupture; in other words, if the implant contents have escaped through the fibrous capsule, they are, by definition, present in the intracapsular space as well. There is a distinction between older iterations of silicone prostheses and more cohesive, new-generation silicone implants. Apart from some exceptional circumstances, cohesive silicone will not spread to surrounding tissue; however, the silicone present in older generations of implants can be subject to wide dissemination and, in rare cases, has migrated as far as the inguinal area.[1][2][3][4]

Etiology

The most common causes of implant rupture are secondary to the normal aging of the implant, as all prostheses have a recommended lifespan and are prone to rupture eventually once this is exceeded. Literature and personal experience allow clinicians to estimate this timeframe, ranging from 12 to 35 years.[5] All ruptures occurring within 20 years are premature in the case of modern implants. These early ruptures are related to various causes, including incompetent valves, manufacturing defects, and underfilling of the implant, which leads to folds in the implant capsule, thereby provoking premature weaknesses in the wall.

Trauma can also lead to implant rupture. Most blunt trauma does not cause a prosthesis rupture, with the possible exception of high-velocity, direct, blunt trauma to the breast (eg, impact on a steering wheel in a motor vehicle accident). Nonpenetrating traumas were encountered in closed capsulotomies of old silicone prostheses. Still, these are seen less frequently today, as many of this generation of implants have been replaced, and more modern implant construction has been designed to prevent this complication.[6][7][8][9][10]

Epidemiology

The incidence of implant rupture increases with the age of the implant. Prosthesis wall thickness does not play any determinant role in ruptures, as companies offer inflatable prostheses of varying wall thicknesses, and all have a similar rupture rate. Overfilling is rarely responsible for ruptures, though it is essential to comply with filling guidelines for any individual implant. Also, during surgery, iatrogenic damage to the implant may cause it to rupture.[11]

Pathophysiology

Breast volume loss is typically the most noticeable sign of rupture in patients with saline implants, with few additional symptoms present. If exploration happens very early after deflation, the surgeon will notice a certain amount of clear fluid (saline from the implant) within the capsular pocket. If surgery is performed long after deflation, water in the capsular pocket will have diminished, and only the deflated implant will likely be encountered within the capsule.

In the case of old silicone prostheses ruptures, silicone will be free inside the capsular pocket, and apart from the inflammatory process in the thickened capsule, some free and encapsulated silicone (granuloma) can be found in the surrounding tissue. Silicone may also migrate and be identified in the patient's lymph nodes.[12] Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) may occur in patients who have had breast implants placed either for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes. Discussion about BIA-ALCL is beyond the scope of this article.[13]

History and Physical

For saline prostheses, the most common sign associated with implant rupture is evidence of volume diminution, which can be acute or gradual. There is rarely pain with a saline implant rupture outside of the infrequent post-traumatic ruptures. Some chest wall pain may occur in silicone prostheses as the granulomatous inflammatory reaction occurs. A saline implant rupture is easy to detect on physical examination: it is often referred to as a deflated breast and decreases in size over a few days. If the saline implant deflates within a few days of insertion, it is suggestive of iatrogenic damage or an improperly closed valve.

For a mature implant, a recent history of trauma could cause the rupture, but in the absence of this, manufacturing defects may be responsible, or late-stage implant failure may indicate the end of the implant's lifespan. Silicone implant rupture is often challenging to detect on physical examination, with most cases being intracapsular; further evaluation with imaging is therefore usually required. Extracapsular silicone implant ruptures can sometimes produce a palpable mass or irregularity of the breast as inflammation and granulomatous tissue form; alternatively, they may present with vague pain or tenderness symptoms or may be completely asymptomatic. Lymphoma has also been reported in association with a certain subset of breast implants, so the astute surgeon must never forget to query the patient regarding axillary or local masses and systemic symptoms that could herald lymphoma.

Pertinent questions for a patient with a suspected implant rupture include the following:

• When was the implant placed?
• What type of implant was placed (if known)?
• What was the onset and duration of any symptoms?
• Are fevers/chills, or B-symptoms present?

Key physical examination findings to assess in patients with suspected breast implant rupture include the following:

• Breast shape and symmetry
• New breast masses
• Associated lymphadenopathy in the axillae or elsewhere
• The texture of the breast implant in question 
• Skin changes in the affected breast versus the contralateral breast
• Nipple discharge

Evaluation

A saline implant rupture often requires no radiographic evaluation. As described above, a simple clinical evaluation demonstrating volume loss is sufficient. The implant will often demonstrate a wrinkled appearance if mammography imaging is obtained. An intact implant will display a simple anechoic interior on ultrasound, whereas a rupture will reveal folds or wrinkles within the implant capsule. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will show a saline implant following a fluid signal on all sequences.[14][15][16]

An intracapsular silicone implant rupture is very difficult to see on mammography. A bulge of the implant contour can suggest an intracapsular rupture. Ultrasound is increasing in its reliability in identifying intracapsular ruptures. The most reliable finding is a stepladder sign, in which multiple linear echoes are noted in the implant. Additional findings observed via ultrasound include the "keyhole" sign, subcapsular line, and inhomogeneous implant content. MRI is the most sensitive method for detecting silicone implant rupture. The demonstration of silicone on both sides of a radial fold is known as the keyhole, noose, or teardrop sign (all referring to the same finding).

The finding of multiple folds of the implant shell layering upon itself is referred to as the linguine sign and highly indicates an intracapsular rupture. This finding should not be confused with the normal radial folds/creases of an implant, which are often straight, thick, and short, extending to the periphery of the shell. Computed tomography imaging will also demonstrate the characteristic linguine sign. However, with an overall low sensitivity and high radiation dose, it is not used to evaluate implant rupture; it is often incidentally seen on computed tomography.[17]

Extracapsular rupture can often be seen with mammography and ultrasound, showing the extravasated silicone in the surrounding tissues or axillary lymph nodes. The snowstorm sign is a sonographic finding of silicone gel droplets mixed with breast tissue, showing a heterogeneous echogenic appearance resulting from the dispersion of the ultrasound beam. MRI is still the modality of choice to determine the extent of the extravasation. The silicone will have a low signal on T1-weighted images and a high signal on T2-weighted fat-suppressed images. Computed tomography is not used to evaluate extracapsular rupture because the silicone and the surrounding soft tissues demonstrate a similar radiodensity.

Treatment / Management

The empty shell of a ruptured saline implant should be removed. A ruptured silicone implant, whether intracapsular or extracapsular, should also be removed because of the possible interaction with surrounding tissue and possible spread to local lymph nodes. Replacement with a new implant, whether silicone or saline, should be offered. Asymptomatic patients may be reluctant to undergo this procedure, but the overall long-term safety should be emphasized, and the risk of malignancy should be discussed.

If an intracapsular rupture occurs, then a capsulectomy can be performed. If all silicone has been cleaned (if the rupture was very recent, this is possible), the surgeon may not remove the fibrous capsule. If there is a doubt about silicone persistence, the surgeon should attempt to remove the entire fibrous capsule infiltrated by silicone. A capsulectomy will be necessary in cases of calcification. If the rupture is extracapsular, then the patient may need several surgeries to retrieve all of the extravasated silicone gel, with a delayed replacement of the implant to restore normal breast contour.

Differential Diagnosis

When evaluating a patient with suspected breast implant rupture, it is essential to consider a broad differential diagnosis to avoid misinterpretation of symptoms and ensure appropriate management. The differential diagnosis for breast implant ruptures includes the following:

• BIA-ALCL
• Capsular contracture
• Avulsed muscle
• Infection
• Seroma
• Hematoma
• Breast malignancy
• Benign breast disease

Prognosis

The prognosis of most patients who experience a ruptured breast implant is good, especially when identified early. Patients who live with a ruptured implant may experience capsular contracture, migration of the silicone beyond the capsule surrounding the implant, and systemic illness from silicone migration. Controversy remains whether silicone implants with or without the migration of silicone are involved in the development of breast implant illness.[11][12]

Complications

The rupture of a breast implant is a known risk of having a breast implant placed. A ruptured saline implant is usually noticed visibly and requires an additional procedure for replacement, carrying similar surgical risks to the original implant placement. A ruptured silicone may lead to capsular contraction, migration of silicone beyond the implant capsule, and may require staged procedures for removal and placement of a new silicone implant.

Deterrence and Patient Education

Patients should be informed before placing breast implants that the typical implant lifespan is 12 to 35 years. They should also be educated that the United States Food and Drug Administration recommends imaging breast implants starting at year 5 or 6 with MRI or ultrasound. Routine imaging should be completed every 2 to 3 years to evaluate the integrity of the implants.

Pearls and Other Issues

Breast implants have an expiration date and a lifespan and may need to be replaced to avoid complications such as implant rupture. The rate of implant rupture can be directly related to the age of the implant (in the absence of obvious, severe trauma). With more than 3.5 million individuals in the United States living with breast implants, medical professionals need to recognize typical clinical presentations, select appropriate diagnostic tests, interpret common imaging findings, and implement evidence-based management strategies.[18]

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Breast implants are not permanent and have a definitive lifespan that varies from 12 to 35 years. With advancing age, they have the potential to rupture, and hence, all healthcare professionals should be familiar with the workup. Ideally, patients should have their implants assessed for rupture starting 5 to 6 years after initial placement. Since MRI is costly, ultrasound is a less expensive alternative to monitor the integrity of a patient's implants. Patients should continue with their routine mammogram after implant placement for breast cancer, as sporadically, an implant rupture may be identified on a mammogram.

When a patient is diagnosed with a ruptured implant, the patient should be referred to a plastic surgeon to discuss her treatment options. Ideally, a ruptured breast implant should be surgically removed. The patient's healthcare team should assist her in providing the radiologic images to the plastic surgeon. This coordination of care may decrease any delay of surgical intervention and reduce the patient's anxiety over the diagnosis of a ruptured breast implant. Depending on the extent of rupture and tissues involved, a staged surgical procedure may be required for removal of the ruptured implant and placement of a new breast implant. Patients requiring a staged procedure for treatment of a ruptured breast implant may need additional medical and emotional support from their healthcare team during the treatment process.

Enhancing patient-centered care for breast implant rupture requires a coordinated, interprofessional approach. Physicians and advanced practitioners must accurately assess clinical presentations, order appropriate imaging, interpret results, and guide management decisions, while nurses provide education, perioperative support, and follow-up care. Pharmacists optimize perioperative medication use and ensure antibiotic stewardship. Effective strategies include standardized care pathways, decision aids, and shared documentation within the electronic health record. Ethical responsibilities include clear patient counseling, informed consent, and equitable access to care. Structured communication tools and multidisciplinary collaboration improve safety, streamline referrals, and align care with patient goals. Regular team reviews and quality metrics further strengthen outcomes, patient safety, and overall team performance.

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Click here for a simplified version.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Glazebrook KN, Doerge S, Leng S, Drees TA, Hunt KN, Zingula SN, Pruthi S, Geske JR, Carter RE, McCollough CH, Fletcher JG. Ability of Dual-Energy CT to Detect Silicone Gel Breast Implant Rupture and Nodal Silicone Spread. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):933-942. [PubMed: 30779664]

2.

Khoo T, Proudman S, Limaye V. Silicone breast implants and depression, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome in a rheumatology clinic population. Clin Rheumatol. 2019 May;38(5):1271-1276. [PubMed: 30706290]

3.

Kaderbhai A, Broomfield A, Cuss A, Shaw K, Deva AK. Breast implants: A guide for general practice. Aust J Gen Pract. 2021 Jul;50(7):484-490. [PubMed: 34189547]

4.

Ceccarino R, Di Micco R, Cappelletti R. Aesthetic Breast Surgery Under Cold Tumescent Anesthesia: Feasibility and Safety in Outpatient Clinic. Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Oct;83(4):384-387. [PubMed: 31524728]

5.

Van Slyke AC, Carr NJ. Reply: Not All Breast Implants Are Equal: A 13-Year Review of Implant Longevity and Reasons for Explantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar;143(3):664e-665e. [PubMed: 30601311]

6.

Prasad K, Zhou R, Zhou R, Schuessler D, Ostrikov KK, Bazaka K. Cosmetic reconstruction in breast cancer patients: Opportunities for nanocomposite materials. Acta Biomater. 2019 Mar 01;86:41-65. [PubMed: 30576863]

7.

Magill LJ, Tanska A, Keshtgar M, Mosahebi A, Jell G. Mechanical and surface chemical analysis of retrieved breast implants from a single centre. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019 Mar;91:24-31. [PubMed: 30529983]

8.

Bachour Y, Heinze ZCM, Dormaar TS, van Selms WG, Ritt MJPF, Niessen FB. Poly Implant Prothèse silicone breast implants: implant dynamics and capsular contracture. Eur J Plast Surg. 2018;41(5):563-570. [PMC free article: PMC6153863] [PubMed: 30294070]

9.

Syal S, Mwansa V, Chhabra L. Unexpected Silicone Breast Implant Rupture After Implantation of Insertable Loop Recorder. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2018 Apr-Jun;14(2):e4-e6. [PMC free article: PMC6051130] [PubMed: 30038701]

10.

Paolini G, Firmani G, Briganti F, Macino M, Nigrelli S, Sorotos M, Santanelli di Pompeo F. Assessment of Risk Factors for Rupture in Breast Reconstruction Patients with Macrotextured Breast Implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Apr;47(2):517-530. [PMC free article: PMC10070228] [PubMed: 36229658]

11.

Peterson MN, Giblon RE, Achenbach SJ, Davis JM, TerKonda SP, Crowson CS. The Incidence and Outcomes of Breast Implants Among 1696 Women over more than 50 Years. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Dec;47(6):2268-2276. [PMC free article: PMC10841363] [PubMed: 37580563]

12.

Ferreira S, Barros AS, Marques M. Breast Implant Illness: Symptoms, Outcomes with Explantation and Potential Etiologies-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Aug 11; [PubMed: 40788544]

13.

Flores T, Kerschbaumer C, Glisic C, Weber M, Schrögendorfer KF, Bergmeister KD. Breast Implants: Low Rate of Annual Check-Ups Results in Delayed Presentation of Ruptured Implants. J Clin Med. 2024 Oct 31;13(21) [PMC free article: PMC11547161] [PubMed: 39518683]

14.

Expert Panel on Breast Imaging: Lourenco AP, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, diFlorio RM, Heller SL, Holbrook AI, Lewin AA, Mehta TS, Niell BL, Slanetz PJ, Stuckey AR, Tuscano DS, Vincoff NS, Weinstein SP, Newell MS. ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Breast Implant Evaluation. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 May;15(5S):S13-S25. [PubMed: 29724416]

15.

Mennie JC, Quaba O, Smith M, Quaba A. Diagnosing PIP breast implant failure: a prospective analysis of clinical and ultrasound accuracy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Apr;68(4):540-5. [PubMed: 25496719]

16.

Kreymerman P, Patrick RJ, Rim A, Djohan R, Crowe JP. Guidelines for using breast magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate implant integrity. Ann Plast Surg. 2009 Apr;62(4):355-7. [PubMed: 19325335]

17.

Rukanskienė D, Bytautaitė G, Česnauskaitė A, Pilipaitytė L, Aštrauskas T, Jonaitienė E. The Value of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Integrity of Silicone Breast Implants. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 May 03;57(5) [PMC free article: PMC8147634] [PubMed: 34063687]

18.

Rea VMS, Gowda R, Nicholson E, Isaac KV. Recommendations for a Canadian Breast Implant Registry. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2025 Jul 15;:22925503251355977. [PMC free article: PMC12264254] [PubMed: 40677290]

Disclosure: Karen Szymanski declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Beverly Mikes declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.