Skip to main content
Log in

Self-expanding prostheses complicating augmentation mammoplasties

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new and serious complication was experienced by patients of three independent surgeons following routine augmentation procedures. In each case reported, double-lumen prostheses had been used. All cases were reoperated with a diagnosis of capsular contracture. However, at surgery it was found that the outer lumen of the prostheses had overfilled with 60–160 cc of interstitial fluid, probably because of an osmotic gradient. The possible causes of this unfortunate complication are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Austad ED, Rose GL: A self-inflating tissue expander. Plast Reconstr Surg 70(5):588–594, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bern S, Burd A, May JW: The biophysical and histologic properties of capsules formed by smooth and textured silicone implants in the rabbit. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(6): 1037–1042, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biggs TM et al: Augmentation mammaplasty: retropectoral versus retromammary implantation. Clin Plast Surg 15(4):549–555, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bingham HG et al: Breast cancer with silicone breast implants after 13 years. Ann Piast Surg 20(3):236–237, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bricout N et al: Prothèses et Accidents des Silicones. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 30:268, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brozena SJ et al: Human adjuvant disease following augmentation mammaplasty. Arch Dermatol 124(9):1383–1386, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burkhardt BR et al: Capsular contracture: hard breasts, soft data. Clin Plast Surg 15(4):521–532, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burkhardt BR, Fried M, Schnur PL, Tofield JJ: Capsules, infection, and intraluminal antibiotics. Plast Reconstr Surg 68:43, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  9. Burkhardt BR et al: Comparing contracture rates: probability theory and the unilateral contracture. Plast Reconstr Surg 74:528, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  10. Caffee HH: The effect of intraprosthetic methylprednisolone on implant capsules and surrounding soft tissue. Ann Plast Surg 12:348, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carrico TJ, Cohen IK: Capsular contracture and steroid related complications after augmentation mammoplasty. A preliminary study. Plast Reconstr Surg 64:377,1979

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chang L, Caldwell E, Reading G, Wray RC: A comparison of conventional and low-bleed implants in augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(1):79–82, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  13. Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM: Breast sensation before and after plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:1, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  14. Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM, Anastasi GW: The fate of breast implants with infections around them. Plast Reconstr Surg 63:819, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cucin RL, Guthrie RH, Graham M: Rate of diffusion of Solu-Medrol across the silastic membranes of breast prostheses-an in vitro study. Ann Plast Surg 9:228, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deapen DM, Brody GS: Augmentation mammaplasty and breast cancer: a 5-year update of the Los Angeles study. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(4):660–665, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ellemberg AH: Marked thinning of the breast skin flaps after the insertion of implants containing triamcinolone. Plast Reconstr Surg 60:755, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.Ellemberg AH, Braun H: A 31/2 year experience with double lumen implants in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:307, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ersek RA, Glaes KL, Navarro JA: Result of reaugmentation with MISTI prostheses after failure of smooth silicone prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(1):83–89, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ersek RA: Rate and incidence of capsular contracture: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone double-lumen breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(5):879–884, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gylbert L, Asplund O, Jurell G: Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with silicone-gel and saline-filled implants: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 85(3):373–377, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hagerty RC: Complications of augmentation mammaplasty and their treatment. JSC Med Assoc 86(10):545–549, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hoffman S et al: Treatment of breast contractures with open capsulotomy and replacement of gel prostheses with polyurethane-covered implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(4):808, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  24. Krystyna AP, Austad ED, McClatchey KD, Cherry GW: Electron microscopic evaluation of guinea pig skin and soft tissues “expanded” with a self-inflating silicone implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 70(1):37–45, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jankauskas S et al: Scleroderma after silicone augmentation mammaplasty: is there a causative relationship? (Letter). Plast Reconstr Surg 83(1):198, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  26. Levine RA et al: Definitive diagnosis of breast implant rupture by ultrasonography. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(6):1126–1128, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maxwell GP et al: Management of mammary subpectoral implant distortion. Clin Plast Surg 15(4): 601–611, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  28. Picha GJ, Goldstein JA: Analysis of the soft-tissue response to components used in the manufacture of breast implants: rat animal model. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(3):490–500, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reddick LP: Lack of correlation between silicone breast implants and scleroderma. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(3):575, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  30. Riefkohl R, Roberts TL, McCarty KS: Lack of adverse effect of silicone implant on sarcoidosis of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 76:296, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  31. Seleznick MJ et al: Is silicone associated with connective tissue disease? J Fla Med Assoc 78(2):85–87 (31 ref), 1991

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spear SL, Matsuba H, Romm S, Little JW: Methyl prednisolone in double-lumen gel-saline submuscular mammary prostheses: a double-blind, prospective, controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(3):483–487, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  33. Spiera H et al: Scleroderma after silicone augmentation mammaplasty. J Am Med Assoc 260(2):236–238, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  34. Truong LD et al: Silicone lymphoadenopathy associated with augmentation mammaplasty. Morphologic features of nine cases. Am J Surg Pathol 12(6): 484–491, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  35. Truppman ES, Ellenby JD: A 13-year evaluation of subpectoral augmentation mammoplasty. In: Owsley JQ, Peterson RA (eds): Symposium on Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  36. Van Rappard JH et al: Pressure resistance of breast implants as a function of implantation time. Ann Plast Surg 21(6):566–569, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  37. Weisman MH: Connective-tissue disease following breast augmentation: a preliminary test of the human adjuvant disease hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 82(4):626–630, 1988

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Signorini, M., Grisotti, A., Ponzielli, G. et al. Self-expanding prostheses complicating augmentation mammoplasties. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 18, 195–199 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00454482

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00454482

Key words

Navigation