Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Plast Surg. 2014 Nov;41(6):734-9. doi: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.6.734. Epub 2014 Nov 3.

A retrospective analysis of ruptured breast implants.

Author information

1
Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Rupture is an important complication of breast implants. Before cohesive gel silicone implants, rupture rates of both saline and silicone breast implants were over 10%. Through an analysis of ruptured implants, we can determine the various factors related to ruptured implants.

METHODS:

We performed a retrospective review of 72 implants that were removed for implant rupture between 2005 and 2014 at a single institution. The following data were collected: type of implants (saline or silicone), duration of implantation, type of implant shell, degree of capsular contracture, associated symptoms, cause of rupture, diagnostic tools, and management.

RESULTS:

Forty-five Saline implants and 27 silicone implants were used. Rupture was diagnosed at a mean of 5.6 and 12 years after insertion of saline and silicone implants, respectively. There was no association between shell type and risk of rupture. Spontaneous was the most common reason for the rupture. Rupture management was implant change (39 case), microfat graft (2 case), removal only (14 case), and follow-up loss (17 case).

CONCLUSIONS:

Saline implants have a shorter average duration of rupture, but diagnosis is easier and safer, leading to fewer complications. Previous-generation silicone implants required frequent follow-up observation, and it is recommended that they be changed to a cohesive gel implant before hidden rupture occurs.

KEYWORDS:

Breast implantation; Rupture; Silicone gel

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Publishing M2Community Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center