Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants Revisited: A 30-Year Follow-Up

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background Polyurethane coating of breast implants has been shown to reduce capsular contracture in short-term follow-up studies. This 30-year study is the longest examination of the use of polyurethane-coated implants and their correlation with capsular contracture.

Methods This study evaluates the senior surgeon's (F.D.P.) experience with the use of polyurethane-coated implants in aesthetic breast augmentation in 382 patients over 30 years. Follow-up evaluations were conducted for six months after surgery. After the six-month follow-up period, 76 patients returned for reoperation. The gross findings, histology, and associated capsular contracture were noted at the time of explantation.

Results No patient during the six-month follow-up period demonstrated capsular contracture. For those who underwent reoperation for capsular contracture, Baker II/III contractures were noted nine to 10 years after surgery and Baker IV contractures were noted 12 to 21 years after surgery. None of the explanted implants had macroscopic evidence of polyurethane, which was only found during the first five years after surgery. The microscopic presence of polyurethane was noted in all capsules up to 30 years after the original operation.

Conclusions An inverse correlation was found between the amount of polyurethane coating on the implant and the occurrence of capsular contracture. Increasingly severe capsular contracture was associated with a decreased amount of polyurethane coating on the surface of the implants. No contracture occurred in patients whose implants showed incomplete biodegradation of polyurethane, as indicated by the visible presence of polyurethane coating. We recommend research to find a non-toxic, non-biodegradable synthetic material as an alternative to polyurethane.

Publication History

Received: 13 November 2014

Accepted: 09 December 2014

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2015. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• REFERENCES

• 1 Ashley FL. A new type of breast prosthesis. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 45: 421-424
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA breast implant consumer handbook 2004: timeline of breast implant activities. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013. cited 2015 Jan 12 Available from: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/ucm064242.htm
  Google Scholar
• 3 Van Zele D, Heymans O. Breast implants. A review. Acta Chir Belg 2004; 104: 158-165
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 National Toxicology Program. Bioassay of 2,4-diaminotoluene for possible carcinogenicity. Natl Cancer Inst Carcinog Tech Rep Ser 1979. 162. 1-139
  Google Scholar
• 5 Pharma and MedTech Business Intellignece. The gray sheet: bristol-myers squibb polyurethane-coated breast implant study [Internet]. Informa Business Information Inc.; 1993. cited 2015 Jan 12 Available from: https://www.pharmamedtechbi.com/publications/the-gray-sheet/19/040/bristolmyers-squibb-polyurethanecoated-breast-implant-study
  Google Scholar
• 6 Hester Jr TR, Ford NF, Gale PJ. et al. Measurement of 2,4-toluenediamine in urine and serum samples from women with Meme or Replicon breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1291-1298
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Parsa FD. Displaced inframammary fold after Meme breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81: 643-644
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Parsa FD. Breast capsulopexy for capsular ptosis after augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85: 809-812
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Collis N, Coleman D, Foo IT. et al. Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglandular silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 786-791
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Cohney BC, Mitchell S. An improved method of removing polyurethane foam-covered gel prostheses. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1997; 21: 191-192
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR. et al. Reconstructive breast implantation after mastectomy for breast cancer: clinical outcomes in a nationwide prospective cohort study. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 1152-1159
  Google Scholar
• 12 Kulmala I, McLaughlin JK, Pakkanen M. et al. Local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Finland. Ann Plast Surg 2004; 53: 413-419
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Vazquez G. A ten-year experience using polyurethane-covered breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1999; 23: 189-196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J. et al. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 757-767
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Coleman DJ, Foo IT, Sharpe DT. Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? A prospective controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 1991; 44: 444-448
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH. et al. Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48: 229-237
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O'Fallon WM. et al. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 677-682
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Peters W, Keystone E, Smith D. Factors affecting the rupture of silicone-gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32: 449-451
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 de Camara DL, Sheridan JM, Kammer BA. Rupture and aging of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91: 828-834
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Robinson Jr OG, Bradley EL, Wilson DS. Analysis of explanted silicone implants: a report of 300 patients. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 34: 1-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Marotta JS, Goldberg EP, Habal MB. et al. Silicone gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prostheses and meta-analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 49: 227-242
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA. et al. Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 996-1003
  Google Scholar
• 23 Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB. et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132: 1115-1123
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Brand KG. Foam-covered mammary implants. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15: 533-539
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Brickman M, Parsa NN, Parsa FD. Late hematoma after breast implantation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004; 28: 80-82
  PubMedGoogle Scholar