Tag Archives: breast implants

A Special Report: Can Breast Implants Cause Chronic Disease?

We Are Quoted, , , ,

by Julie Halpert , October 25, 2022

With new FDA warnings, troubling research, and a growing online population sharing stories and symptoms, experts and women with implants weigh in.

JENNIFER JOHNSON, 43, of Wilcox, NE, underwent a preventative double-mastectomy—a surgical procedure that removes all tissue from both breasts—in July 2008 at age 29 after learning she carried the BRCA2 genetic mutation.

Research shows that having BRCA2 increases risk of developing breast cancer (BC) by 45%. Johnson’s family history didn’t make her keen to play the odds: Her mother died from the disease at 34, as did her sister Debbie at 39, while another sister, Valerie, was diagnosed with BC in her 40s and, thankfully, is still here. After Johnson’s doctor told her that her own chances of facing a similar fate were exceedingly high, she chose the double-mastectomy as the safer bet.

The surgery didn’t spare her, however. A post-op pathology report found that Johnson already had an aggressive type of breast cancer (“stage 1, triple-negative, grade 3”) in her right breast that required immediate treatment.

Her plastic surgeon was “adamant,” she says, that she get breast implants to return her body to normal, since she was so young. She got silicone implants on her 30th birthday. Within several months, she began experiencing intermittent, aching pain in her muscles and joints, as well as “shooting, stabbing pains” in her chest, she reports. She also battled rashes and severe fatigue. “I basically felt like I was dying a slow death, like my body was just giving out slowly over time,” she recalls.

A team of specialists told her nothing was wrong. But her symptoms continued—leaving her distraught. After four years of this, she had her implants removed (known as explant surgery). To her great relief, “I started feeling better right away,” she says. “Every single symptom disappeared within a year.”

Johnson is among those who have experienced what’s colloquially known as breast implant illness (BII), when significant health issues—fatigue, chest pain, hair loss, headaches, chills, photosensitivity, rash, chronic joint pain, among other symptoms—arise after getting implants.

[….]

We asked women who’ve undergone reconstruction or done elective breast implant surgery to share their experiences. We also polled breast health experts on their thoughts about this popular cosmetic surgery being done in the U.S. and around the world—and its potential implications for the chronic community.

SAFETY CONCERNS

Are Breast Implants Safe? Or Not?

In October 2021, the FDA issued new restrictions for breast implants, including a mandated box warning on the product label to inform patients of significant health risks, such as an increased cancer risk; a checklist of items that health care providers should discuss with patients as they consider implants; updated silicone gel-filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations; and a list of specific materials used to create the implant.

Then, this past September, the FDA issued a safety communication following reports of cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue that had formed around breast implants, noting that “currently, the incidence rate and risk factors for SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants are unknown.” A spokesperson for the agency added, “The FDA recognizes that many patients’ symptoms may take years to develop, and patients may not be aware of the risk of SCC … We will keep the public informed as significant new information becomes available about SCC and lymphoma variants in the breast implant capsule.”

[….]

PATIENT REPORTS

Implants Remain Popular, Yet Some Patients Suffer

Safety issues haven’t dimmed enthusiasm for breast implants. According to a 2020 report by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), there were 137,808 implants provided for breast reconstruction and 193,073 for cosmetic surgery in this country alone. Silicone implants were used in 84% of breast augmentations, while saline implants were used in 16% of such procedures in 2020.

Mark Clemens, M.D., a professor of plastic surgery at MD Anderson in Houston, TX, who has led several MD Anderson-based safety studies on breast implants, says the recent FDA communication shouldn’t alter the perception of breast implant safety. He believes that it was done out of abundance of caution to inform, not frighten, women. When it comes to breast implants, “the vast majority of women will be completely healthy [after getting them] and won’t have any issues,” he says. However, he urges women who notice any signs of abnormality—asymmetry between breasts, the firming of a breast, or a palpable mass or a fluid collection—to consult a physician to ensure there’s nothing wrong.

Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., president of the National Center for Health Research, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that draws from scientific studies to improve public policy and medical oversight in the U.S., believes more independent research is required before an accurate safety assessment can be made. She says that nearly all the research being done on breast implant safety has been conducted by the very hospitals and plastic surgery organizations that either offer reconstruction and elective implant procedures as a service, or represent the surgeons who are paid to perform them—a big source of revenue and conflict of interest, leaving troubling questions of inherent bias being baked into the results.

“I can’t emphasize enough how much resistance there has been from the plastic surgeons’ medical societies and the implant manufacturers” to doing more and better research on implants, Zuckerman says. While some plastic surgeons have vocalized their concerns over the need for better information for their patients, “the medical societies—the major sources of information that FDA officials rely on—have been vehemently opposed,” she reports. “Their usual mantras are some variation of ‘breast implants are the most studied medical device in history’; hundreds of studies prove they are very safe’; and ‘so-called breast implant illness symptoms are common symptoms caused by aging and other factors, not by the implants.’” Implant manufacturers say the same thing—not coincidentally, Zuckerman adds.

Nicole Daruda, age 58 and living in Vancouver Island in Canada, openly doubts the industry’s safety claims. “Breast implants are linked to autoimmune symptoms and diseases and many other health problems,” she maintains. Daruda got cohesive gel implants in 2005 and saw her once excellent health “decimated by breast implants.” Within the first few years of having them she says she experienced fatigue, brain fog, various infections, food allergies, and hypothyroidism, with more symptoms appearing each year.

Daruda had her implants removed in 2013, and within four years she says all of her symptoms resolved. She started the Facebook group, Breast Implant Illness and Healing by Nicole, in April 2015 to provide a forum for women experiencing health issues after having implants to support and talk to each other. The group now has more than 170,000 members. Daruda says that she’s heard from thousands of women on her social media platform who report their health has improved after getting their implants removed.

[….]

IMPLANTS AND LYMPHOMA

What You Need to Know About Lymphoma

According to the FDA, as of September 2020, more than 700 people worldwide have been diagnosed with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, an uncommon cancer. The agency found that the women with textured breast implants have a small but increased risk of developing this disease. The working theory, Dr. Glasberg explains, is that the texturing on the implant drives inflammation, which causes a change in the capsule around the implant that then develops into lymphoma.

Despite his belief that breast implants are safe for the vast majority of women, Dr. Clemens authored a 2021 study that examined eight cases of Epstein–Barr virus-positive large B-cell lymphoma associated with breast implants “and we’ve been trying to understand these better,” he says. (The eight women in the study were all patients at MD Anderson, a medical center that offers breast reconstruction and elective breast implant surgery, who were among the 30 known cases in the world of this type of lymphoma, per the FDA tally.) Increased awareness, combined with more pathology testing of scar tissue, plus physicians and patients being aware of breast implant-associated issues has “drawn our attention to looking for these other diseases,” he says.

IMPLANTS AND AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE

Breast Implants and Autoimmune Disease

Autoimmune issues arise when the body mistakenly attacks its own healthy tissue, causing damaging inflammation and often chronic pain and fatigue, among other symptoms, some of them disabling and/or permanent.

In 2018, MD Anderson conducted the largest study to date to explore long-term safety outcomes of breast implants, finding an association, though not a causation, with some rare diseases, including the autoimmune disorders Sjögren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and scleroderma. What’s more, researchers in the Netherlands found that more than two-thirds of women with autoimmune symptoms who had their breast implants removed experienced a reduction in symptoms.

That same year an Israeli study—research that Zuckerman says is both independent and well-designed—compared more than 24,000 breast implant patients to more than 98,000 women without breast implants but who shared similar demographic traits and reported a 22% increase in several autoimmune and rheumatic disorders, as diagnosed by their physicians and reported in their medical records. In addition, the same study reported a 60% increased risk of Sjögren’s syndrome, multiple sclerosis (MS), and sarcoidosis among those with implants, as well.

Dr. Clemens, the principal investigator of the large MD Anderson study, points out that some of those diseases in his study were self-reported by study participants, and not necessarily diagnosed by a physician—a limitation of the research. He doesn’t believe the findings are cause for concern. “The vast majority of patients with implants do not experience these symptoms or diseases,” he says. “However, it is important that they are aware of these conditions so that if they note any changes or have concerns, they can discuss with their treating physician.”

Then again, a 2021 study on breast implants and respiratory health found that 74% of participants who had their breast implants removed showed significant improvements on at least three of the six pulmonary function tests performed—an objective, not self-reported, medical tool.

For her part, Zuckerman notes that research is often funded by implant manufacturers and used to argue that breast implant illness is not real. A major weakness of most BII studies, a report by her organization found, is that they evaluate only diagnosed diseases. The reason why women decide to have their implants surgically removed and not replaced, she explains, is often due to symptoms of autoimmune and connective tissue diseases, rather than official diagnoses.

“The women and their doctors often report a constellation of symptoms that do not fit the exact criteria of known diseases,” she explains, adding that most people aren’t hospitalized for the autoimmune issues most associated with BII. Without symptoms that perfectly fit a specific diagnosis, many women will not have a diagnosis logged into medical records.

[….]

REMOVING YOUR IMPLANTS

Can Implant Removal Mean a Return to Health?

Some women, who can find no other explanation for their symptoms, like Johnson, are having their implants removed. In 2020, 22,676 explants were performed on reconstruction patients in the U.S., per the ASPS. Johnson says she was forced to find a different plastic surgeon to perform the procedure, since the one who put them in didn’t believe they caused health issues.

“He stood back looking at my chest and said, ‘I did an amazing job on those and really don’t want to take them out,’” she recalls.

[….]

Zuckerman believes the health rebound after explant surgery may be higher than the plastic surgery industry acknowledges. Since 2015, her organization has been contacted by more than 4,500 women who had breast implants they wanted removed due to rupture, breast pain, or medical symptoms caused, they believed, by their implants. NCHR was asked to advocate with health insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid to cover the costs of implant removal, she adds, since many of the women could not afford explant surgery.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Who Should You Believe? A critique of the Aesthetic Society’s view of BII

Summaries of Implant Studies by Other Researchers, Testimonies and Statements by NCHR, , ,

By Diana Zuckerman, PhD.

An article entitled “A Practical Guide to Managing Patients With Systemic Symptoms and Breast Implants” was published in the  Aesthetic Surgery Journal, (Volume 42, Issue 4, April 2022, Pages 397–407). This is a journal of the Aesthetic Society, which is the second largest association of plastic surgeons.  The authors are Patricia McGuire, MD, Daniel J Clauw, MD, Jason Hammer, MD, Melinda Haws, MD, and William P Adams, Jr, MD

There are many outrageous articles denying the existence of breast implant illness, but this may be the worst since it was published after major studies documented that breast implant illness exists.  The authors are prominent plastic surgeons who are members of the Aesthetic Society and/or the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), which are the two major associations for plastic surgeons.  All but one of the authors have financial ties to companies that make breast implants.

The theme of the article is clearly stated in the summary: “Numerous studies have explored the possibility of an association between breast implants and systemic symptoms potentially linked to exposure to silicone. Some studies show no direct association whereas others provide insufficient scientific evidence to prove or disprove an association. Nonetheless, some patients with breast implants remain concerned about the possible role of their implants in systemic symptoms they may be experiencing. This paper provides a practical approach for plastic surgeons in managing patients with breast implants who present with systemic symptoms, including recommendations for patient counseling, clinical and laboratory assessment of symptoms, and/or referral. Integral components of patient counseling include listening attentively, providing unbiased information, and discussing the risks and benefits of options for evaluation and treatment.”

In reality, there are numerous studies in major medical journals that show a “direct association” between breast implant illness and diagnosed diseases with similar symptoms.  But the plastic surgeons who wrote the article are saying there is no evidence.  They are also saying that since patients mistakenly think BII is real, surgeons should assure them that although BII it is not proven, research is underway to study the issue.  That gaslighting is intended to show the patients that their surgeon is open-minded.

You might ask what is the evidence that the authors use to conclude that BII is not real?  To me as a researcher, this is the most mind-boggling part.  In addition to misquoting a 22-year old report from the Institute of Medicine – a report that is extremely outdated — and including a few individual case studies that just happen to all illustrate the authors’ view that breast implant illness isn’t real — the authors made several major errors:

#1.  They state that “In 2019, an FDA advisory panel on breast implant safety determined that there is currently insufficient evidence of a causal relationship between breast implants and the diagnosis of rheumatologic disease or [connective tissue disease].” They footnote this statement with a document that was written by the FDA before the FDA advisory panel met in 2019 and which did not draw any such conclusions.

#2. They state that “a number of epidemiological studies taken together are felt by many experts in the field to represent convincing evidence that there is no link between SBIs and auto-immune diseases.” The authors support that statement by listing 9 articles that they do not discuss. Almost all of the articles were funded by implant manufacturers and/or plastic surgeons, and 3 were published more than 20 years ago, based on poorly designed studies. One study was described as a study of 55,000 women, but in reality a large percentage of the patients dropped out before the study was completed.  Most outrageous of all, the last 2 studies listed actually concluded the opposite to what the plastic surgeons claimed:  The Israeli study and the Baylor study that both concluded that several autoimmune diseases with symptoms similar to BII are significantly increased after women get breast  implants.

#3.  They mistakenly conclude that since women with saline breast implants also report BII symptoms, the symptoms are not related to the silicone shell.  This is a ridiculous statement since all breast implants have silicone shells.

#4.  In contrast to their uncritical acceptance of poorly designed and biased studies funded by implant manufacturers and surgeons with financial ties to those implant makers, when the authors briefly mention studies showing that women with BII symptoms that improve after their implants are removed, they speculate (without evidence) that such improvement might be temporary.  It is notable that they didn’t even mention the 2021 study by Dr. Feng and her colleagues, which showed significant improvement in lung function after explant surgery.  That is no accident, since this Aesthetic Society article was published many months later.

There are too many other careless errors in the article to list them all.  I can’t help but wonder if the authors read any of the studies they were supposedly quoting.  While urging plastic surgeons to pretend to be open-minded, the authors are anything but.  They repeatedly misrepresent research findings in order to support their biased view that the symptoms of breast implant illness are not caused by breast implants.

In summary: This article makes it clear that the Aesthetic Society is encouraging their members to “gaslight” patients with BII, rather than help them get explanted.  Women who are seeking well-informed plastic surgeons should avoid the authors and think twice before believing anything they hear from plastic surgeons that belong to the Aesthetic Society, since the journal is published by that medical group.

Breast Augmentation and Plastic Surgery Are on the Rise – What Are the Risks?

How Safe Are They?, We Are Quoted, , , , ,

Juliana Guarracino, Honeysuckle Magazine: December 29, 2021

In the past year, the Brazilian butt lift (BBL) has swarmed many TikTok feeds with women sharing their experiences, both good and bad. From 2017 to 2019, the number of BBL procedures has increased by about 38 percent. This is despite a 1 in 20,117 patient mortality rate when performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon in the United States, which is higher than the death rate of outpatient surgery overall. This has accompanied an overall 33 percent increase in cosmetic surgery for women between 2000 and 2020. Though, with a growing number of patients, the safety measures meant to guarantee their safety are disputed among experts.

[….]

What Are the Risks of Breast Augmentation Surgery?

A lot of information on social media, according to Youn, tends to be advertisements, rather than credible material. There is little regulation, however, on who is able to perform plastic surgery in the United States. As Youn mentioned, not all doctors seem to put patient safety first. By law, any licensed doctor can perform plastic surgery regardless of their field and qualifications. Board certification is also not required for plastic surgeons. With such a lack of legal oversight, the idea behind this checklist is that it can help inch patients and surgeons closer to honest and informative conversations.

“With breast augmentation, it is very appealing that a patient may want it so badly, [overlooking] that there are potential downsides or risks or maintenance,” said Dr. Allison Lied, board-certified plastic surgeon and member of HealthyWomen’s Health Advisory Council. Recent regulations seek to provide patients with the information necessary to make an educated decision. Since cosmetic surgery is elective, it is especially important that there be informed consent as the procedure has the ability to put a healthy individual into a potentially life-threatening condition, according to both Lied and Youn. “I think [checklists are] good because it makes the patient slow down and consider those potentials.”

With these new mandates, surgeons must review the checklist with patients, and to confirm their understanding, patients must initial and sign the document. While this may be satisfactory enough to ensure that patients receive all information needed to guarantee their safety, Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, is still concerned about the enforcement of the regulation.

“There is nothing to stop the surgeon… from saying ‘I have to give this [checklist] to you and you have to sign it, but honestly this is the safest procedure possible, and breast implants have been studied and you really don’t have to worry at all,’” Zuckerman said. While she is glad to see further regulation, she questions how the FDA will be able to ensure the thoroughness of the consultation and discussion of the checklist. “Are the women actually reading [the checklist]? Are they understanding it?”

Despite the checklist being comprehensive and informative, the design of the checklist may hinder a patient’s ability to understand the surgery and how a patient’s health may be affected, according to Zuckerman. “It starts with information you’ve already heard about… then, by the time they get to page four or five where the more important information is, are [patients] even going to be paying attention?”

The Best Breast Augmentation Information Versus FDA Hesitation

Before the release of the FDA’s most recent mandate, The Breast Implant Working Group, which includes Zuckerman along with surgeons, health policy experts and patients, spoke with the FDA to request a checklist that is more “user-friendly” than the one that the FDA had planned to release. Suggestions included clarifying potential risks, such as Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a cancer of the immune system, and Breast Implant Illness (BII), which includes symptoms like memory loss, chronic fatigue and a low-grade fever. They also advised implementing a more comprehensive list of possible symptoms with stronger descriptions. The Working Group recommended that the FDA work with manufacturers to create a certification course for surgeons using their implants as well in order to address the issue of enforcement for the checklist. While these experts and advocates believed that these revisions would help to ensure informed consent for patients, the FDA proceeded with their own checklist, largely ignoring the recommendations made by the team.

[….]

While it is understandable that the FDA would be cautious about passing new regulations on something that is perhaps novel and under-researched, this is not the case for breast augmentation. With 193,073 individuals receiving breast augmentation surgery in 2020, the FDA’s hesitancy to recommendations and research may prove more dangerous than beneficial.

“No matter what’s in writing and what’s required, once you are in the doctor’s office and it’s just you and the doctor or you and the nurse, what is there to ensure you are getting accurate information?” said Zuckerman. Patients can do their own research on surgeons and procedures, but experts and policy makers in the field can further support their education and safety. For those women going under the knife and the experts supporting them, being listened to may be what defines the future of women’s health. “It’s one thing to have a good idea, another to implement this idea and another idea to enforce it.”

To read the entire article, click here.

What You Need to Know About Breast Implants

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Diana Zuckerman, PHD; Elizabeth Naglin-Anderson, MA; and Elizabet Santoro, RN, MPH, National Center for Health Research

In 2020, fewer than 194,000 women and teenagers underwent surgery to have their breasts enlarged with silicone or saline implants, a 33% decrease compared to 2019.  In addition, more than 137,000 breast cancer patients had reconstruction after mastectomy in 2020, often with implants.1 While the popularity of breast augmentation had tripled between 1997, when there were just over 101,000 of these procedure,2  to 2017 when over 300,000 breast augmentations were performed1, recent trends show that fewer women are opting for augmentation.

There were also 59,043 implant removal procedures in 2020, including augmentation and reconstruction patients, compared to 54,539 in 2019 and 48,385  in 20181 . The increasing number of women removing their implants can be attributed to several factors, including news stories highlighting the risks of breast implants, the growing mass media and social media presence of patient advocates, Allergan’s recall of their BIOCELL textured breast implants in 2019 and efforts to notify women of the recall, and several insurance companies expanding their coverage to include women whose textured implants were recalled.

However, debate continues to swirl about the safety of breast implants. Here are the facts about what is known and not known about the risks of breast implants.

History of Implants in the US

Breast implants made with silicone envelopes and filled with silicone gel or saline (salt water) were first sold in the United States in the 1960s, but sales were relatively slow until the 1980s. By 1990, however, almost one million women had undergone breast implant surgery, even though no safety studies had been published. Most of those women had silicone gel breast implants, which the plastic surgeons preferred.

Although most medical products must be proven safe and effective before they can be sold in the U.S., that was not true for implanted medical devices sold before 1976.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not require that companies selling silicone breast implants prove that their implants were safe until 1991 – after they had been in use for almost three decades. For the first time, the media started to report about women with implant problems, and quoted doctors who were concerned about implant safety. When the studies were provided to the FDA, the safety data were found to be inadequate to warrant FDA approval.

The FDA did not require implant makers to prove that their saline implants were safe until 2000, when, despite high complication rates, the FDA approved saline breast implants for the first time.

Silicone gel breast implants were approved for the first time in November 2006. Between 1992 and 2006, silicone implants were restricted to clinical trials that were primarily for cancer patients and women with broken implants. The FDA required that patients be informed that the implants were not approved by the FDA and to be regularly evaluated by their plastic surgeons as part of the study, in order to provide safety data intended to help all women with gel implants. Unfortunately, there was no enforcement of that requirement and women who were enrolled in these studies to enable them to get breast implants were often not studied after the surgery.

Silicone gel breast implants made by two manufacturers were approved in November 2006, and gel implants made by one/two other manufacturers were approved subsequently.  There are still restrictions, however. For example, they are only approved for women over the age of 22, because younger women are still developing physically and emotionally and probably would not fully understand the risks.

In 2011, the FDA began tracking cases of a cancer of the immune system linked to textured breast implants, known as breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Over the next several years, as studies were completed, FDA and medical experts recognized that rather than just being “possibly associated” with ALCL, breast implants caused ALCL, and that the risk was highest among women with textured breast implants. In 2019, Allergan recalled their BIOCELL textured implants worldwide following growing evidence of the greater risk of BIA-ALCL for women with those implants.  At the time of the recall, the FDA reported that 573 cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide had been reported since 2011, and this known total was increased to 1,130 in 2022.

In September 2022, the FDA announced new information about other cancers related to breast implants: various other lymphomas as well as squamous cell carcinoma. At the time of the announcement, the FDA had received 10 reports about breast implant-related SCC and 12 reports about lymphomas other than ALCL. Like BIA-ALCL, these cancer cells all were found in the scar capsule surrounding the breast implant, which is why experts believe the implants are the cause.  The implants involved were saline and silicone, textured and smooth.

What Are the Known Risks?

Reports of complications among women with implants have been published in medical journals and discussed at public FDA meetings. There are a number of short-term and long-term risks that any woman thinking about getting breast implants or about removing or replacing older implants needs to be aware of.

“Local complications” refer to problems that occur in the breast area that are obviously related to the breast implants or the surgery. Common complications include infection and other surgical risks, chronic breast pain, breast or nipple numbness, capsular contracture, breakage and leakage, necrosis (skin death), the need for additional surgery, and “cosmetic” problems (such as dissatisfaction with how the breast looks with the implant).

Studies of saline breast implants and silicone gel breast implants conducted by implant manufacturers have shown that within the first three years, approximately three out of four reconstruction (breast cancer) patients and almost half of first-time augmentation patients experienced at least one local complication – such as pain, infection, hardening, or the need for additional surgery.3

For example, among reconstruction patients:

  • 46% of women with silicone gel implants and 21% with saline implants underwent at least one re-operation within three years;
  • 25% of silicone patients and 8% of saline patients had implants removed; and
  • 6% of silicone patients and 16% of saline patients experienced breast pain.4

Complication rates were lower, but still substantial, for augmentation patients. The FDA has a consumer handbook with descriptions of common complications as well as photographs, available to consumers here.

Among all reported complications related to breast implants, BIA-ALCL has been the most concerning, especially as reported cases continue to rise worldwide.  Since many physicians do not report problems with medical devices, reports to the FDA are considered “the tip of the iceberg.”  Therefore, it seems that BIA-ALCL is not “very rare.”  In the U.S., the most recent estimates place the risk of BIA-ALCL in textured implants between from 1.79 per 1,000 (1 woman with BIA-ALCL per 559 implants) to 2.82 per 1,000 (1 woman per 355 implants)5. There has been a dramatic increase in diagnoses of BIA-ALCL in recent years, indicating that BIA-ALCL was under-diagnosed and under-reported for many years, and that focusing on textured breast implants greatly increases the prevalence of BIA-ALCL compared to smooth implants..

In addition to the risks from anesthesia, surgical risks include infection and hematoma (blood collecting around an implant), both of which can range from mild to severe. Surgical risks are highest immediately around the time of surgery, but complications can require additional surgery later, which will have similar risks. A woman may need to face these surgical risks several times if she needs surgery to correct implant problems or has broken or damaged implants replaced with new ones.

Common local complications include loss of nipple sensitivity or painfully sensitive nipples. Some women are dissatisfied with the cosmetic results of breast implants, because their breasts look or feel unnatural or asymmetrical, or they can hear a “sloshing sound” from saline-filled implants. Problems like these can interfere with sexual intimacy.

Scar tissue that forms around any implant or foreign body can become hard or tight around the implant. This common problem is called capsular contracture. The scar tissue is inside the body, but it can cause the breasts to become very hard and misshaped, and it leads to discomfort that ranges from mild to severely painful.

Researchers have shown that bacteria or mold can grow in saline implants, and have expressed concerns about the bacteria or mold being released into the body if the implant breaks.6 What effect that might have on a woman, or a nursing baby, has not been studied.

What Happens When Implants Break?

All breast implants will eventually break, but it is not known how many years the breast implants that are currently on the market will last. Studies of silicone breast implants suggest that most implants last 7-12 years, but some break during the first few months or years, while others last more than 15 years.

In a study conducted by FDA scientists, most women had at least one broken implant within 11 years, and the likelihood of rupture increases every year.7 Silicone migrated outside of the breast capsule for 21% of the women, even though most women were unaware that this had happened.

Implant makers were required to study breakage and provide their studies to the FDA.  Short-term studies of today’s saline implants suggest that between 3-9% break within the first three years, and one implant manufacturer’s study of their silicone gel implants found that between 3-20% break within three years.3,8 A Danish study of ruptured silicone gel implants suggests that most implants last for ten years, but by the time they are 11-20 years old, most will break, and after 20 years the few that are still intact will break.9

Many women with silicone gel implants are unaware that their implants are broken or leaking.  Plastic surgeon Dr. Scott Spear and the former director of FDA’s Office for Women’s Health, Dr. Susan Wood, point out that “magnetic resonance imaging is the most accurate way to detect a rupture…Mammograms are often inaccurate in detecting rupture, and if an implant is already broken, the pressure from a mammogram could cause the silicone gel from the implant to leak outside the capsule.”10

Silicone Migration. Research has shown that silicone gel in implants can break down to liquid silicone at normal body temperatures, and there are reports of silicone leakage and migration from implants to the lymph nodes and other organs.11 What happens if liquid silicone migrates to the lungs, liver, or other organs? A study published by the Royal Academy of Medicine in Scotland found that a woman with a broken silicone gel implant in her calf was coughing up silicone identical to the kind in her implant.12 This has potentially serious implications for women with breast implants, since silicone gel breast implants are considerably larger and closer to the lungs than calf implants.

Do Breast Implants Make Women Sick?

A more controversial question is whether breast implants cause diseases or illnesses, in addition to ALCL and problems in the breast area.

Autoimmune, Connective tissue and Other Painful Diseases and Conditions.  Several reports published since the late 1990’s concluded that there is no evidence that implants cause systemic disease.13,14 These reports, however, often relied on research that focused on painful and autoimmune conditions and diseases in women who had implants for a relatively short time — ranging from a few months to a few years. Since these diseases may take many years to develop and be diagnosed, studies that include women who had implants for such a short time cannot be used to determine whether or not breast implants increase the long-term risks of getting these diseases.

Studies conducted after those initial reports were published indicated that implants might be linked to a number of diseases. For example, FDA scientists conducted a study of women who had silicone gel breast implants for at least seven years and found that those with implants that were leaking outside the scar tissue surrounding the implant were significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of at least one of several painful and debilitating diseases, such as fibromyalgia, polymyositis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, mixed connective-tissue disease, or pulmonary fibrosis.15  The risk of these diseases remained even after statistically controlling for patient’s age, implant age, and implant manufacturer.

Do implant patients who have autoimmune symptoms feel better if their implants are removed?  A study of 95 women who had silicone gel-filled breast implants and rheumatologic symptoms such as joint pain, found that the symptoms improved in 97% (42 of 43) of the women who had their breast implants removed. In contrast, rheumatologic symptoms worsened in 96% (50 of 52) of the women who did not have their implants removed.16 In addition, a university researcher has reported that silicone stimulates an immune response, and cellular analyses indicate that these responses are associated with atypical forms of connective tissue disease.17

A study of Danish women who had breast implants for an average of 19 years found that they were significantly more likely to report fatigue, Raynaud-like symptoms (white fingers and toes when exposed to cold), and memory loss and other cognitive symptoms, compared to women of the same age in the general population.18

Despite reporting that women with implants were between two and three times as likely to report those symptoms, the researchers, who were funded by a silicone manufacturer, concluded that long-term exposure to breast implants “does not appear to be associated with” autoimmune “symptoms or diseases.” However, the symptoms they reported can be from autoimmune diseases.

A report summarizing studies of breast implants was conducted by researchers hired by Tufts University and funded by The Plastic Surgery Foundation, which was supported by the 3 U.S. implant manufacturers.  This summary is notable for barely mentioning the studies quoted above.19

A study by MD Anderson Cancer Center researchers that was published in September 2018 in the medical journal Annals of Surgery, concluded that “silicone implants are associated with an increased risk of certain rare harms” and that further study is needed “to inform patient and surgeon decision-making.”20 The study included more than 100,000 women with implants, but is based on data from flawed studies conducted by two implant companies, Mentor and Allergan. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the researchers found that the risks of certain autoimmune diseases increased by 800% (Sjogren syndrome), 700% (scleroderma), and 600% (arthritis) for the women with Mentor silicone gel breast implants compared to the general population of women of the same age and demographics.  Stillbirths increased by 450% in the women who became pregnant.  Other autoimmune and rare diseases were also significantly higher among women with Mentor silicone gel implants.  These diagnoses were also statistically significantly higher for women with Allergan implants compared to the general population of women of similar demographics. Given the large percentage of women who were not in the study for more than 1 year, it is not possible to know how representative these findings are. However, these results raise important questions, especially now that it is known that breast implants can cause cancer of the immune system.

Will Explant Surgery Help Women with Breast Implant Illness Recover?

A 2020 study conducted by Dr. Lu Jean Feng and her colleagues also shows the risk of breast implant illness for women with breast implants, by studying the impact of explant surgery on women with breast implant illness symptoms. This study of 750 women, focused on 11 symptoms: 1) numbness and tingling in the extremities; 2) joint and/or muscle pain; 3) hair loss; 4) memory loss/cognitive problems; 5) dry eyes and/or blurred vision; 6) chronic fatigue; 7) breast pain; 8) rashes and/or hives; 9) food sensitivity/intolerance; 10) flu-like symptoms and/or low-grade fever; 11) difficulty breathing.  After the women had their implants removed, most reported a significant improvement in their health within 30 days. This was true for women with either silicone gel implants or saline implants21. Not all the women had all the symptoms prior to getting their implants removed, and some reported worse symptoms than others.  After the women had their implants removed, the women reported a statistically significant improvement in their health within 30 days. The highly significant results showed that this was a real difference, that did not happen by chance.  Improvements in symptoms occurred for women with either silicone gel implants or saline implants21

A 2021 study by many of the same physicians and researchers focused only on women who had reported “trouble breathing” prior to having their implants removed.22  There were 53 women in the study, and they had implants for an average of 12 years, including silicone or saline implants.  After their implants were removed, 100% of the women reported improvement in breathing.  Even more important, the physicians used 6 objective measures of “pulmonary function” that were compared before and after their implants were removed.  On half of those 6 measurements, the women showed statistically significant improvement.  In other words, the women reported improvement and those results were consistent with the evaluations conducted by the doctors using medically established objective measures indicating breathing difficulties.22

Do Breast Implants Increase the Chances of Developing Other Types of Cancer?

As mentioned above, breast implants can cause a type of cancer of the immune system called ALCL. There are also unanswered questions about cancer and implants. A study by National Cancer Institute (NCI) scientists found a 21% overall increased risk of cancer for women who had implants for at least seven years, compared with women of the same age in the general population.23 The increase was primarily due to an increase in brain, respiratory tract, cervical, and vulvar cancers. More research is needed to draw any conclusions, however.

There is no research evidence that implants cause breast cancer. However, implants can interfere with detection of breast cancer.

Mammograms have been shown to detect breast cancer earlier, potentially saving lives as well as saving women from needed mastectomies.  There are several ways in which implants have the potential to delay detection of breast cancer:

  • Although mammography can be performed in ways that minimize the interference of the implants, approximately 55 percent of breast tumors will be hidden in women with implants.24
  • FDA scientists report that silicone or saline implants can rupture when women undergo mammograms, and for this reason, women who fear implant rupture may forego mammograms.25
  • The accuracy of mammograms tends to decrease as the size of the implants increase in proportion to the size of the woman’s natural breast.

Patients have reported that their implants delayed their breast cancer diagnosis.24  Research findings have been inconsistent, but a 2013 Canadian systematic review of 12 studies found that women with breast cancer who had breast implants are diagnosed with later-stage cancers than women with breast cancer who did not have implants. This is likely due to delays in breast cancer detection because of implants. 26

A delay in diagnosis could result in the woman needing more radical surgery or the delay could be fatal.  A 2013 Canadian meta-analysis of five studies found that if women who had breast augmentation later developed breast cancer, they were more likely to die from it than women diagnosed with breast cancer who did not have breast augmentation. This increased risk of breast cancer-specific death is likely to be due to the greater inaccuracy of mammography for women with implants.25

An NCI study found that women who had breast implants for at least 12 years were more likely to die from brain tumors, lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and suicide compared with other plastic surgery patients.27 Augmentation patients were not more likely to smoke than other plastic surgery patients, so the difference in respiratory diseases did not appear to be due to smoking. However, more research is needed to better control for relevant health habits. Three Scandinavian studies have reported that women who had breast implants for augmentation were three times more likely to commit suicide compared to women in the general population.28,29, 30

What Are Other Concerns?

Breastfeeding. According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), women with any kind of breast surgery, including breast implant surgery, are at least three times as likely to have an inadequate milk supply for breastfeeding.12 Concerns about the safety of breast milk have also been raised, but there has not been enough research to resolve this issue.  A study of a small number of women with silicone gel breast implants found that the offspring born and breastfed after the mother had breast implants had higher levels of a toxic form of platinum in their blood than offspring born before the same women had breast implants.30

Problems with Memory and Concentration. Women with implants have raised concerns about memory loss, difficulties with concentration, and other cognitive problems. FDA’s analysis of studies by implant companies found a significant increase in neurological symptoms, such as poor concentration, for women who had silicone implants for two years compared to their symptoms just prior to getting implants. These differences were maintained even when the women’s ages were statistically controlled.32 Some experts believe these symptoms could be related to the small amounts of platinum that are used to make silicone gel breast implants, since potentially toxic levels of platinum have been found in the blood and urine of women with implants.33

Unfortunately, there is no well-designed published epidemiological research to determine whether there is an association between these complaints and breast implants.

Financial Costs. Breast implant surgery is not a one-time cost. On average, implants last 7-12 years, and each replacement adds to the cost. Even if the implant itself is replaced for free, or if the surgeon offers his or her services for free, the cost of the medical facility, anesthesiology, and other expenses can still cost many thousands of dollars for each surgery.  These expenses are affordable for some women, but not for others, especially if the implant breaks after just a few months or years, or after a woman is divorced or loses her job.

When the FDA approved silicone gel breast implants in November 2006, it stated that women with these implants should have a breast MRI three years after getting silicone implants and every two years after that. 33 However, because of the expense and the reluctance of plastic surgeons to encourage MRIs for silent ruptures, very few women followed the FDA’s advice.  As of October 2020, FDA now recommends an MRI 5-6 years after the initial surgery and every 2-3 years after that. The purpose of the MRIs is to determine if the silicone gel breast implants are ruptured or leaking, because there are often no symptoms.33 Breast MRIs usually cost at least $2,000, and at some facilities they cost more than $5,000. It is important to remove silicone implants if they are ruptured, to avoid the silicone leaking into the breast or lymph nodes. That is an additional expense of at least $5,000, and can be $10,000 or more.

Saline implants do not require MRIs to check for leakage, and do not usually cost more than $5,000 to remove. The cost of MRIs and the additional cost of removing leaking silicone makes silicone implants substantially more expensive than saline.

What about health insurance? Typically, cosmetic surgery is not covered by health insurance, and problems resulting from cosmetic surgery are also not covered.9 Health insurance will not pay for MRIs to check for silicone leakage for augmentation patients. In some states, major health insurance providers do not insure women with breast implants.9 Some insurers will sell health insurance to women with implants, but charge them more, and some insurers will not cover certain kinds of illnesses – or any problems in the breast area – for women with breast implants. Obviously, this can be a terrible problem for women who are diagnosed with breast cancer or any other illnesses that are excluded, whether or not those diseases are related to the implants.

What If I Need to Get My Implants Removed?

Women who have implants sometimes decide to have them removed because of complications, disappointment with how they look or feel, or concern about the long-term health risks. Some surgeons discourage patients from removing their implants. This may be because they don’t share the patient’s concerns, or because they know that some patients will be very unhappy with their appearance after the implant is removed. (See photo #3 here) Women with ruptured silicone implants often lose breast tissue as part of the removal surgery. If silicone has leaked into the breast tissue, the resulting removal surgery may be similar to a mastectomy. (See second photo here).

As noted in the earlier section about safety, many women report symptoms of “breast implant illness.”  After being tested to try to find a cause or treatment, an increasing number of these women are choosing to have their implants removed.  Fortunately, if the entire scar capsule and breast implants are carefully removed, most of these women find that their symptoms disappear or are greatly reduced.21,22

The plastic surgeon who performed the original surgery is not necessarily the best choice for removing the implant. Removal can be much more complicated and expensive than the original surgery, especially after a silicone gel implant has broken. Some plastic surgeons are very experienced at removal and are especially skilled at getting the best possible cosmetic result. Most surgeons who specialize in removal recommend removing the implants “en bloc,” which means that the implant and the intact scar tissue capsule surrounding it are all removed together. This helps remove any silicone that may have leaked from a broken gel implant, and also helps remove silicone or other chemicals that may have “bled” from the silicone outer envelope.

Are There Newer, Safer Implants?

As part of new research studies, plastic surgeons sometimes offer “gummy bear” breast implants, named after gummy bear candies because the implants are a thicker, more cohesive silicone gel. Since the shell and gel in these newer models are thicker than most other silicone gel implants, it is possible that they might be less likely to break or leak into the body.

Despite only 3 years of data provided by Silimed (Sientra) on relatively small numbers of patients, the FDA approved their “gummy bear” implants in 2012.  New implants often have risks that are not immediately obvious, and even after only 5 years of data were available, it was obvious that these gummy bear implants had similar types of complications  to other silicone implants. Only when the cohesive gel implants are in women for more than 10 years will we know whether and how the implant deteriorates or changes when it is in the human body.

Why long-term safety studies matter. In addition to silicone and saline implants, three other kinds of implants were developed and used primarily outside the United States: Trilucent implants (with soybean oil filler), and Novagold and PIP hydrogel implants, which were filled with a plastic gel.  They provide examples of why long-term safety studies are so important.

Although these implants were enthusiastically promoted by plastic surgeons and the media as a “natural” and safer alternative to silicone or saline implants, clinical trials were apparently never conducted on humans with these implants. By 2000, serious safety concerns resulted in the removal of all three from the market.34,35,36 The fact that they had been praised by doctors and patients when they were initially introduced serves as a reminder that the long-term risks of implants are not always obvious during the first few years of use. That is why studies of the risks of long-term use – which are still lacking for silicone implants – are essential to establish the safety of all kinds of implants.

Making Sure Patients Are Warned of Implant Risks

In 2019, the FDA held a public meeting to discuss the risks of breast implants.  They heard from many women who testified that they were never warned  about the risks of BIA-ALCL, breast implant illness, or other systemic symptoms, and instead were told by their plastic surgeons that breast implants were very safe and the only risks were the risks of surgery, infection, and capsular contracture.  In response, in September 2020, the FDA released a final guidance urging breast implant companies to provide more comprehensive information about risks in the form of a “black box warning” and a patient information checklist.  A black box warning is the strongest warning the FDA provides for drugs and medical devices, focusing on serious complications that can cause health problems or death.  The FDA also provided a draft of a patient information checklist that implant companies should provide to the surgeons who buy their products.  In October 2021, the FDA made the black box warning mandatory on the label of all breast implants and also required the companies to make public the list of ingredients used to make their breast implants. As of March 2022, several companies have not yet complied with FDA’s mandate.

Conclusions

Research clearly shows that implants are associated with significant health, cosmetic, and economic risks within the first few years and these risks increase over time. Unfortunately, long-term risks remain unknown because of a lack of well-designed and carefully conducted scientific studies. When they approved silicone gel breast implants in 2006, the FDA required two implant manufacturers, Allergan and Mentor, to each conduct 10-year studies of at least 40,000 women  to determine why implants break, how long they can be expected to last, and what the longer-term health consequences of broken and leaking breast implants might be. Unfortunately, however, those studies were never completed and the FDA did not require the companies to substitute similarly well designed studies.

Related Articles

Study on Silicone Breast Implants and Unexplained Symptoms

Breast Implants and Cancer of the Immune System (ALCL): A History of Who Knew What When

Why are celebrities removing their breast implants?

For more information about breast implants, see www.breastimplantinfo.org.

All articles are reviewed and approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff.

References:

  1. 2020 Complete Plastic Surgery Statistics Report, American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
  2. ASAPS Percent of Change in Select Procedures: 1997-2004.American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS), 2005. www.surgery.org. ASAPS estimates approximately 70,000 more augmentation surgeries in 2004 than does ASPS.
  3. FDA transcript of the Advisory Panel Meeting on Mentor Saline Breast Implants, testimony of Dr. Sahar Dawisha, pages 431-7, 441, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/transcripts/3596t1.rtf; FDA transcript of the Advisory Panel Meeting on McGhan Saline Breast Implants, testimony of Dr. Sahar Dawisha, pages 129-148, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/transcripts/3596t2.rtf. Local complications are even higher, and tend to be more serious, for women with silicone gel breast implants. See Inamed Corporation’s McGhan, Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, October 14-15, 2003, slides 39-42 and 49-51, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3989s1.ppt
  4. FDA Summary Panel Memorandum of Inamed PMA, pages 21-22, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4101b1_tab-1_fda-Inamed Panel Memo.pdf, Zuckerman D, Santoro E, Hudak N. Silicone Breast Implants: Illnesses and Complications, The Latest Research from Inamed’s Core Study at www.breastimplantinfo.org/what_know/oct03_summary.html.
  5. Lynch EB, DeCoster RC, Vyas KS, Rinker BD, Yang M, Vasconez HC, Clemens MW. Current risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Ann Breast Surg 2021;5:30
  6. Young VL, Hertl, CH, Murray PR, et al. Microbial Growth Inside Saline-Filled Breast Implants.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1997; 100: 182-196.
  7. Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA, et al. Prevalence of Rupture of Silicone Gel Breast Implants Revealed on MR Imaging in a Population of Women in Birmingham, Alabama. Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175: 1057-1064.
  8. FDA Summary Panel Memorandum of Inamed PMA, pages 21-22, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005-4101b1_tab-1_fda-Inamed Panel Memo.pdf.
  9. Holmich L, Friis S, Fryzek J, et al. Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture. Arch Surg, 2003; 138: 801-6.
  10. Wood SF, Spear SL. What do women need to know and when do they need to know it? Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, December 2007;120(7 Suppl 1):135S-139S.
  11. Katzin WE, Centeno JA, Feng LJ. Pathology of lymph nodes from patients with breast implants: A histologic and spectroscopic evaluation. Modern Pathology. 2002; 15: 246A. (abstract).
  12. James SE, Tarr G, Butterworth MS, et al. Silicone in the sputum after rupture of a calf implant. J R Soc Med 2001;94:133-134.
  13. Bondurant S, Ernster V, Herdman, R, eds. Safety of Silicone Breast Implants. Washington, DC:Institute of Medicine; 1999.
  14. Janowsky EC, Kupper LL, Hulka BS. Meta-analyses of the relation between silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:781-790.
  15. Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, et al. Silicone Gel Breast Implant Rupture, Extracapsular Silicone, and Health Status in a Population of Women. J Rheumatology. 2001; 28:996-1003.
  16. Aziz NM, Vasey FB, Leaverton PE, et al. Comparison of clinical status among women retaining or removing gel breast implants. Presented at the American College of Epidemiology, 1998.
  17. O’Hanlon TP. Restricted and Shared Patterns of TCR b-chain Gene Expression in Silicone Breast Implant Capsules and Remote Sites of Tissue Inflammation. J Autoimmunity. 2000; 14: 283-293.
  18. Breiting VB, Holmich, LR, Brandt B, Long-term health status of Danish women with silicone breast implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2004; 114: 217-226.
  19. Balk, Ethan M, et al. “Systematic Review of Selected Adverse Outcomes and Symptoms in Women with Silicone Gel Breast Implants.” Tufts Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis, Tufts Medical Center. https://www.brown.edu/academics/public-health/research/evidence-synthesis-in-health/sites/brown.edu.academics.public-health.research.evidence-based-medicine/files/uploads/Silicone%20breast%20implants%20Report.pdf
  20. MD Anderson. “Largest-Ever Study Shows Silicone Breast Implants Associated with Rare Diseases.” MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/2018/09/largest-ever-study-shows-silicone-breast-implants-associated-with-rare-diseases.html.
  21. Wee, Corinne E et al. Understanding Breast Implant Illness, Before and After Explantation: A Patient-Reported Outcomes Study. Annals of plastic surgery vol. 85,S1 Suppl 1 (2020): S82-S86.
  22. Wee, Corinne E. MD*; Younis, Joseph BS*; Boas, Samuel BS*;et al. The objective effect of breast implant removal and capsulectomy on pulmonary function. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open: June 2021;9(6): e3636. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/06000/the_objective_effect_of_breast_implant_removal_and.57.aspx
  23. Nyren O, Yin L, Josefsson S, et al. Risk of Connective Tissue Disease and Related Disorders Among Women with Breast Implants: A Nation-Wide Retrospective Cohort Study in Sweden. British Medical Journal. 1998; 316: 417-422.
  24. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effects of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA, 2004; 291: 442-50.
  25. Brown SL, Todd JF, and Luu HD, Breast Implant Adverse Events during mammography: Reports to he Food and Drug Administration, Journal of Women’s Health 2004, 13: 371-378.
  26. Lavigne E., Holowaty EJ, Pan SY, Villeneuve PJ, Johnson KC, Fergusson DA, Morrison H, & Brisson J. Breast cancer detection and survival among women with cosmetic breast implants: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. British Medical Journal 2013: 346: f2339. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2399.
  27. Brinton LA, Lubin, JH, Murray MC, et al. Mortality among augmentation mammoplasty patients: An update. Epidemiology. 2006; 17: 162-9.
  28. Koot VCM, Peeters PHM, Granath F, et al. Total and cause specific mortality among Swedish women with cosmetic breast implants: prospective study. British Medical Journal. 2003; 326: 527-528.
  29. Pukkala E, Kulmala I, Sirpa-Liis H, et al. Causes of death among Finnish women with cosmetic breast implants. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 2003; 51: 339-42.], [end Jacobsen PH, Holmich LR, McLaughlin JK. “Mortality and suicide among Danish women with cosmetic breast implants.” Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004; 164: 2450. 
  30. Jacobsen PH, Holmich LR, McLaughlin JK. “Mortality and suicide among Danish women with cosmetic breast implants.” Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004; 164: 2450
  31. Maharaj SVM, & Lykissa ED. Total platinum in urine of women exposed to silicone breast implants and in their children conceived after implantation by ICP-MS. Abstracts of Papers, 230th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, United States, Aug. 28-Sept. 1, 2005. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2005; ANYL 510.
  32. Inamed Corporation’s McGhan, Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, October 14-15, 2003, slides #45 and #55, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/slides/3989s1.ppt.
  33. Saline, Silicone Gel, and Alternative Breast Implants: Guidance for Industry and
    Food and Drug Administration Staff, https://www.fda.gov/media/71081/download     (For other identical MRI warnings for Mentor and reconstruction patients, see http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/labeling.htm).
  34. UK Department of Health, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. “Device Alert – Breast Implants: NovaGold.” UK: Medical Devices Agency. www.medical-devices.gov.uk/.
  35. Laurance J, “Agonizing wait for 5,000 women told that their breast implants might leak and cause cancer.” The Independent, 7 June 2000. www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=5864.
  36. “Statement on the Safety of Trilucent Breast Implants.” UK: Medical Devices Agency. www.medical-devices.gov.uk/.

Former ‘Bachelorette’ Clare Crawley Is Removing Her Breast Implants Over Health Concerns—Here’s What to Know

Uncategorized, We Are Quoted, , , ,

Korin Miller, Health: July 06, 2021

Clare Crawley is opening up about her decision to have her breast implants removed over concerns they’re impacting her health.

The Bachelorette star shared the news in a video posted to Instagram that she titled, “Coming to Terms.”

“I’m sharing this in hopes that it might help others going through something similar feel not so alone,” Crawley, 40, wrote in the caption. “I feel that this was important to share so I can be a resource for anyone going through this as well. I know how being your own health advocate is hard sometimes, and can feel like an uphill battle. This is the reality of life for so many people though! I’m just so incredibly thankful to all the people who are in my life that support me not only in my peaks but in the valleys as well.”

In the video, Crawley revealed that she’s been struggling with persistent medical issues over several years. “I’ve been going through things medically with my body that I have not had answers to, to be honest,” she said. “My skin has been having really bad hives and rash. My whole body is just inflamed and itchy.”

Crawley said that she’s also had “blood test after blood test” and seen several doctors. But test results didn’t give her answers about what is going on in her body.

After having two mammograms and an ultrasound—which revealed what she said were sacs of fluid behind her implants—she consulted with her doctor and decided to have her implants removed. “As much as I love my implants, my body is fighting them and recognizes it as something obviously foreign in my body,” she said, adding that blood tests showed an elevated white blood cell count over the past few years. “My body can’t heal. My body is in fight mode, constantly. It’s exhausting, it’s frustrating. It’s all making sense.”

While Crawley said that her decision isn’t the right one for everyone, it’s what’s best for her. “My health is the most important thing. They are coming out,” she said.

Crawley received messages of support in the comments, including from Kayla Lochte, wife of Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte, who shared in March that she had her implants removed over health concerns—specifically she specifically cited as breast implant illness (BII). “Best of luck Clare! Get those toxic bags out,” she said.

While Crawley herself didn’t specifically say that she has BII, she implies it. Here’s what you need to know about the condition—and what to do if you think your breast implants may be impacting your health.

What is breast implant illness, exactly?

It’s important to get this out of the way upfront: Breast implant illness (again, BII) isn’t a medical diagnosis, and there are no hard numbers on how often BII happens.

[….]

That said, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded last year that breast implants should have a “black box” warning to help women make “informed decisions” about potential risks associated with breast implants, including BII, which the FDA labels as “systemic symptoms.” It’s also important to note that BII is different from breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that can develop following breast implants, per the FDA.

BII is tricky to diagnose. “The symptoms women report are pretty nonspecific, and could be related to another illness,” Janie Grumley, MD, a breast surgical oncologist and director of the Margie Petersen Breast Center at Providence Saint John’s Center and associate professor of surgery at Saint John’s Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., tells Health. “It ends up being that, once we’ve worked out everything else and can’t figure out what’s going on, that’s when we think the issue may be breast implants.”

Research has suggested this is a real health concern. One July 2020 retrospective study published in the Annals of Plastic Surgery looked at 750 patients who had their breast implants removed by a surgeon over a two-year period. Researchers found that patients had “significant and sustained improvement” in 11 different symptoms after surgery. Patients found their symptoms improved within 30 days after having their implants removed.

Another study published in the same journal in January 2019, found that people with silicone breast implants had higher rates of the autoimmune conditions Sjogren syndrome, scleroderma, and rheumatoid arthritis than those who don’t have implants. They also had a higher risk of stillbirth and melanoma.

Why might breast implants make some people sick?

“All breast implants have a silicone shell that also contains various chemicals and small amounts of heavy metals,” Constance M. Chen, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon and breast reconstruction specialist, tells Health. “Some breast implants also have a silicone filling that can leach off an intact implant or spill out of a ruptured implant. The silicone, chemicals, and/or heavy metals in the body can make some women sick.”

[….]

Scar tissue usually develops around the implant inside the body in an attempt to protect it from the “invader,” Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research who has researched breast implant safety, tells Health. “For some women, the scar tissue provides the protection they need, and they feel fine,” she says. “For other women, their bodies react more strongly, with an autoimmune reaction or other kind of reaction.”

What should you do if you suspect your implants might be causing your health issues?

You should talk to your doctor, Dr. Grumley says. Just know this, per Dr. Zuckerman: There’s no test that can tell if the implants are making you sick while they’re still in your body. But, she says, “if women find that they are developing symptoms that don’t go away, they should consider getting their implants and the scar capsule removed.”

It’s important to see a doctor who has experience in breast implant removal, Dr. Zuckerman says. Not only do they know what they’re doing, they’ll also know to remove the scar tissue that’s formed, which can contain silicone gel. If they don’t, “the chances of your health improving is not as good,” she explains.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

My breast implants are making me sick — and I’m not alone

We Are Quoted, , , , ,

Pamela Appea, Salon: June 20, 2021

In November 2016, a few weeks after I had breast implant surgery, I came down with an unexpected case of thrush (an unappealing fungal infection characterized by a thick white coating on my tongue). As a Black married mother of two, even though I was still sick, I tried — but failed — to power through and take care of my kids. With intense flu-like aches, pain, and fever, it hurt to eat, drink, swallow, or even open my mouth. I couldn’t properly brush my teeth for several days.

Unfortunately, my primary care physician was on vacation. Panicked, I called the Manhattan oncologist whom I had seen a few weeks earlier. He’d been very kind to me following my DCIS breast cancer diagnosis, unilateral mastectomy and post-surgical treatment. The officer’s medical team could barely understand me when I tried to make the appointment on the phone.

“I don’t think you have thrush — didn’t I just see you a few weeks ago?” he said, trying to put me at ease as I stared at his cheerful neon tie. (I think he prided himself on his fun ties.)

It was torture opening my mouth so the doctor could diagnose me.

“Okay, that’s the worst case of thrush I’ve seen in some time,” the seasoned specialist said. He said he was putting me on antibiotics stat. I asked — or rather, wrote on a notepad, since I couldn’t speak clearly — if there could be any connection between the my immune system and the very new breast implant that was now in my body. The oncologist emphatically dismissed the notion as impossible.

Once he got the results of my lab work back, my physician said there was no evidence of anything wrong; I should bounce back in a few days. “These things sometimes happen,” he told me, smiling as he ushered me out.

While the antibiotics eventually cleared up the thrush, unfortunately I have never fully bounced back. In subsequent years since my breast implants were put in, it became even more clear that something was going on with my immune system. But none of my doctors really listened.

Although it was not formerly recognized by the medical community until recently, Breast Implant Illness (BII) has, in the past few years, finally received attention from both media and researchers. Nicole Daruda founded a Facebook’s support group, called Breast Implant Illness Healing by Nicole, in 2013; now, it boasts over 145,000 members. Daruda tentatively estimates that 50,000 women in the US have BII, although precise research-backed numbers are not readily available

“We are overwhelmed by women trying to join the Facebook group to be educated about Breast Implant Illness,” Daruda said. She estimates that 3,000 to 5,000 women message the group’s moderators every month. To try to meet the demand, Daruda later founded a nonprofit, Healing Breast Implant Illness Society of North America.

Research is just barely starting to emerge on BII. One study, published in Annals of Plastic Surgery in 2020, followed 750 women suffering from Breast Implant Illness over a multi-year time period. Once these women surgically removed their breast implants, the vast majority reported the majority of their symptoms had significantly improved or disappeared entirely.

Awareness appears to be growing, too. A wave of celebrities are talking more openly about breast implants and their health and wellness — including Victoria Beckham, Ayesha Curry, Ashley Tisdale, Chrissy Teigen and others.

A documentary that touches on the subject of BII, “Explant,” is screening right now at the Tribeca Film Festival. The film follows Michelle Visage, one of the celebrity judges on “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Visage, a media personality, singer, DJ and actor who was well known for her signature Double-D breasts, found that doctors didn’t take her seriously when she told the specialists her immune system was out of whack. Visage experienced chronic health issues, including Hashimoto’s disease, that she now attributes to her breast implants.

Awareness of BII is crucial given the popularity of breast implants. Since 1998, the number of breast augmentation procedures in the US has increased threefold; now, they are one of the most sought-out cosmetic procedures.

“The desire for breast augmentation seems so powerful regardless of what else is going on in the world,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, founder of the National Center for Health Research. “What most concerns me is how reluctant most plastic surgeons have been to make sure their patients know the risks before making a decision.”

Because breast implant technology has existed for decades, many women erroneously believe they are safe.

[….]

In the years after my implant, some of my symptoms mirrored women on support groups I found online, which is how I figured out I had Breast Implant Illness. While symptoms sometimes waxed and waned, I got used to experiencing a host of autoimmune and other symptoms like insomnia, brain fog, extreme breathlessness, cuts that took weeks to heal, rashes, frequent colds and much more.

But BII is no longer regarded as a myth. Many or even most doctors, including plastic surgeon Dr. Anthony Youn, believe Breast Implant Illness is real. Dr. Youn acknowledges it is a controversial topic among many of his fellow American plastic surgeons.

“If you’re happy with your breast implants and you don’t believe they are adversely affecting your health, then there is no need for treatment. If you are sick and believe your implants may be the cause, speak with your primary care physician and a board-certified plastic surgeon about whether explantation may be a possible solution for you,” Dr Youn said. “There are many causes of the symptoms of Breast Implant Illness (BII) that don’t involve breast implants, so it’s often best to rule those out first,” he continued.

In his 17 years of practice in the metro Detroit region, Dr. Youn, a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and The Aesthetic Society, has performed surgery on thousands of women who elected to get breast implants. Anecdotally, he estimates the number patients who later returned to his practice stating they had Breast Implant Illness symptoms is an extremely small percentage.

[….]

Though not all women with breast implants go on to develop Breast Implant Illness, all women deserve education, informed consent, insurance coverage and most important information about potential risks. If, in 2015, there had been an FDA Breast Implant Black Box Warning (which was officially unveiled in late 2020), I honestly never would have gotten breast implants in the first place.

To read the entire article, click here.

‘They killed her’: Why are breast implants still putting millions of women at risk?

We Are Quoted, , ,

Maria Aspan, Fortune: May 18, 2020

Thirty-three years before her death, Paulette Parr visited her doctor for a popular and relatively routine procedure. It was 1986, and Parr was 35, working in human resources at the local hospital in Sikeston, a 16,000-person Missouri enclave midway between St. Louis and Memphis. A married mother of two young boys, she was interested in what plastic surgeons still call a “mommy makeover,” a catchall for the various procedures that nip, tuck, and lift women back to a pre-childbirth shape. For Parr, that meant getting her first set of breast implants.

For the next 15 years, through losing her first husband and remarrying and getting promoted to her hospital’s purchasing department, Parr was mostly happy with her implants, and with how they made her look and feel. But they were silicone-based, a type the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned in 1992 over concerns that they were causing autoimmune and safety problems, and Parr eventually started to worry about them. So by 2002, when she learned that one of her implants had ruptured and was leaking silicone into her body, Parr’s surgeon replaced them with saline-filled versions. Her new Biocell implants were covered in a roughly textured silicone shell, designed to reduce movement of the device.

That’s when Parr’s implant-related health problems really began, according to a lawsuit her husband has filed against pharmaceutical company Allergan, the maker of Biocell products and one of three major manufacturers of American breast implants. In 2010, after one of her saline implants started leaking, her plastic surgeon replaced them with yet another set of Biocell textured implants, this time filled with silicone, which the FDA had allowed back onto the market in 2006.

“They were gorgeous, and they were put in by a reputable doctor,” says Paulette’s widower, Calvin Parr, months after her death. “We never gave it a second thought.”

Breast implants have long been a punch line, mocked as frivolous markers of female vanity. But that dismissive attitude overlooks a business with a serious and sometimes deadly impact on the health of its overwhelmingly female customer base. More than 8 million American women have undergone breast-related plastic surgeries since 2000; in 2018 alone, more than 400,000 women chose one for either cosmetic or reconstructive reasons. Breast augmentation is the most popular cosmetic procedure tracked by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Many women, especially those affected by breast cancer, say they are grateful to have implants as an option. “It’s a decision that’s personal,” says Lynn Jeffers, the society’s current president, a plastic surgeon, and a cancer survivor who’s getting post-mastectomy reconstruction. “With the data that I have now, I’m comfortable having implants.”

And pharmaceutical companies have been very comfortable selling them, despite a long history of government recalls and product-liability lawsuits. Allergan, which was acquired by AbbVie in May, sold $399.5 million worth of implants in 2017, before regulators around the globe started banning some of its products. Its main rival, Johnson & Johnson, doesn’t break out results for its Mentor Worldwide breast implant business. Smaller specialist Sientra reported annual “breast products” revenues of $46.4 million in 2019.

Those numbers pale in comparison to blockbusters like Allergan bestseller Botox, which raked in $3.8 billion last year. But like Botox, breast implants can have attractive recurring revenue built in for manufacturers and the doctors who use their products. Even under ideal circumstances, breast implants “are not lifetime devices,” the FDA warns, and will likely need to be replaced every 10 to 15 years, for a cost of up to $12,000 per cosmetic procedure.

Yet as doctors, patients, lawyers, and public health experts tell Fortune, breast implants have remained on the market despite decades of inadequate testing and study, recurrent safety concerns, and poor regulatory oversight. Those problems plague many medical devices, which range from machines used outside the body to artificial parts implanted within it. But breast implants are unique in their affiliation with female sexuality and physical appearance, their intersecting roles as elective beauty products and clinical tools that can help cancer survivors feel more like themselves—and the degree to which patients’ mounting concerns about them have been dismissed for decades. Now, that accumulated failure of oversight has created sweeping, sometimes tragic crises for potentially millions of women.

“There are a lot of women who are really suffering,” says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “You have these products that are widely, widely sold, and every few years we learn something new about the problems they cause.”

Breast implant makers walk a particularly fine line when it comes to creating a product that is both safe and “realistic.” Today’s implants are either filled with saline (more likely to break) or silicone (more natural looking and feeling but plagued by a history of safety concerns). Their exteriors can be either smooth or made of a “textured” silicone shell. Smooth implants are more popular in the U.S., but surgeons working with mastectomy patients sometimes prefer textured versions, because the products’ rougher surface enables tissue to grow onto the implant more easily.

All of these variations are prone to malfunctions or side effects, which can include ruptured implants; a buildup of scar tissue that can cause pain and tissue hardening; a large collection of symptoms often known as “breast implant illness,” which can include joint pain, migraines, and chronic fatigue; and, increasingly, a sometimes fatal cancer of the immune system known as ­BIA-ALCL, for “breast implant–­associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”

“The breast implants that are on the market right now all have issues,” says Madris Tomes, a former FDA manager who tracks reported medical device failures at her Device Events firm. “I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone that I care about.”

The causes of the various problems with breast implants are still poorly understood, which public health experts blame on a lack of testing or objective, long-term studies that do not rely on manufacturer-provided data or funding. Device makers also have yet to fully report the data the FDA required as a condition of allowing silicone implants back on the market in 2006.

[…]

Read the full article here. 

Breast Implant Working Group’s Comments on FDA’s Draft Guidance to Improve Patient Communication on Breast Implants

Testimonies and Statements by NCHR, , , ,

Scot Glasberg, MD,  Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Alan Matarasso, MD, Karuna Jagger, Raylene Hollrah, Jamee Cook, and Maria Gmitro, December 23, 2019

Download the comment here.

Comment to the FDA Docket on the FDA’s Draft Guidance to Improve Patient Communication on Breast Implants

A Working Group comprised of two former presidents of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the president of a national research center, and four nationally respected patient advocates came together to find common ground regarding the risks of breast implants.   As individuals (Dr. Scot Glasberg, Dr. Alan Matarasso, Dr. Diana Zuckerman, Ms. Karuna Jagger, Ms. Raylene Hollrah, Ms. Jamee Cook, and Ms. Maria Gmitro), we are urging that the FDA require a black box warning and Patient Informed Consent Check List that provides information about the risks of cancer, breast implant illness, and other serious health problems in explicit and easy-to-understand wording that all individuals considering breast implants can understand, regardless of educational level or stress that is inevitable when a person is considering surgery.

Black Box Warning

The FDA’s draft Black Box warning is too vaguely worded on BIA-ALCL and breast implant illness, and includes jargon that will not be understood by all patients.  For example, it should specify that breast implants can cause ALCL, breast implants are not lifetime devices (instead of FDA’s proposed Black Box wording that they are “not considered lifetime devices), replace technical jargon, and be more explicit about the evidence regarding breast implant illness instead of making it sound like it is not a real risk.

The FDA draft Black Box states that “breast implants have been associated with the development of a cancer of the immune system called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).”  Association implies correlation rather than causation.  In fact, the evidence is clear that breast implants can cause BIA-ALCL.

The FDA draft says that the rates of BIA-ALCL “are not well defined.”  Although correct, that terminology will not be understood by all patients.  Instead, it should state that the rates “are not known.”

We agree with the FDA draft that it is important to illustrate the seriousness of BIA-ALCL by stating that “Some patients have died from BIA-ALCL.”

The draft Black Box wording regarding symptoms of breast implant illness would be confusing to patients.  It refers to systemic symptoms, which is the correct term, but not one that all patients would understand.  It does not mention breast implant illness, which although not an established medical term, is one that is well understood by patients.  The FDA draft background paper and Black Box warning both state that “some” patients with breast implants “have reported a variety of systemic symptoms,” which implies that the numbers of women with these symptoms is small and that they reported the symptoms but that they haven’t been diagnosed.  That is incorrect.  The wording should be changed to “patients have experienced a variety of symptoms.”  The FDA proposed Black Box statement that “some patients report complete resolution of symptoms” again implies that these improvements are reported but not medically confirmed.

On the contrary, a review of several well-designed studies by De Boer et al. (2017) found that most women with breast implant illness who had their implants removed and not replaced were confirmed by physicians to have complete or substantial improvement in their symptoms and overall health.

In addition, the FDA draft Black Box does not mention the risk of autoimmune/connective tissue diseases.  The Black Box should specify that “several studies suggest that women with silicone gel or saline-filled breast implants have a small but significant increase in their chances of developing certain autoimmune or connective tissue diseases.” That statement is supported by the largest long-term study to date, by Watad et al. (2018), a retrospective analysis of 24,651 women with breast implants (confirmed by medical records) and 98,604 matched women who did not have breast implants. The strongest association with breast implants (OR>1.5, p<0.001) was recorded for Sjögren’s syndrome, systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) and sarcoidosis, based on new medical diagnoses made after the women received breast implants, which were included in medical records during a period of up to 20 years.  In addition, (Coroneos et al. 2019) reported that Allergan’s study of 60% of the almost 50,000 women they enrolled in their study submitted to the FDA, physicians’ diagnoses of their patients two years after their implant surgery found statistically significant increases in fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus compared to the general population.  Although the Mentor data reported in that study are very flawed, the Allergan data, which were provided to the FDA, seem solid.

Patient Informed Consent Checklist

The Breast Implant Working Group created a checklist that was provided to the FDA in October.  This checklist has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the National Center for Health Research, Breast Cancer Action, Our Bodies Ourselves, National Women’s Health Network, Jacobs Institute for Women’s Health, Breast Implant Victims Advocacy, Just Call Me Ray, and Breast Implant Safety Alliance.  It was also supported by more than 77,000 individuals who signed a petition that the Working Group provided to FDA officials on December 9, 2019

We agree with the FDA that the purpose of a patient checklist is to provide information for patients considering breast implants for augmentation or reconstruction, so that they can carefully weigh the risks and benefits of breast implants and make the decision that is right for them. Based on our experience with patients, we urge the FDA to ensure that the checklist is:

  • Brief and easy-to-understand, formatted with information on specific issues that are presented succinctly;
  • Jargon-free. Keep in mind that the average reading level in the U.S. is 6th
  • Organized to focus on the information that patients are less likely to obtain from other sources. It should not start with lengthy sections that are not especially interesting to patients.

Focus and Organization of the Checklist

The goal of the checklist should be to provide the most essential information that patients might not get from standard informed consent forms. It is therefore essential that the checklist provide information that thousands of implant patients have stated they were not warned about.  For that reason, the checklist should not focus on surgical and cosmetic risks, which are the types of risks that all patients are warned about in standard consent forms.  Instead of the almost full page of mostly surgical risks that are listed at the beginning of the FDA’s draft checklist, such risks should be summarized very briefly in one sentence, with the checklist focused on other risks that patients could otherwise not be aware of.  Similarly, cosmetic and local risks should be listed last in the checklist, since that information is more likely to be provided through other means.

The FDA draft checklist starts with “Considerations for a Candidate for Successful Breast Implantation,” cancer risk and a short section on “systemic illness.”  We suggest shorter, more focused headings and information to make the checklist more engaging and easy to read.

Who shouldn’t get breast implants?

The above heading should replace “Considerations for a Candidate for Successful Breast Implantation,’ since that latter heading implies that the patient characteristics listed are the only ones that would reduce the chances of complications or other problems.  In terms of content, the FDA draft wording on who should not get breast implants contains important information but is much too long and includes information that could be summarized.  The goal of the checklist should be to provide the most essential information that patients might not get from standard informed consent forms.  We recommend a short summary regarding active infections, cancer, or wound healing, and the following wording instead:

I understand that the safety of breast implants was never studied for people who have autoimmune symptoms or diseases, or a family history of those diseases. Breast implants may be more likely to cause serious health problems and symptoms for these people.  In addition, breast implants may not be safe for anyone with a weakened immune system or certain genetic risk factors that have not yet been identified.

Risk of Cancer: BIA-ALCL (Breast Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma)

We recommend that the FDA’s draft wording for BIA-ALCL could be improved as follows:

I understand that there is a small risk for me to develop BIA-ALCL, a cancer of the immune system. BIA-ALCL is a type of lymphoma that develops on or around the scar capsule that surrounds the breast implant. I understand that the symptoms of BIA-ALCL include breast swelling, lumps, pain, and asymmetry that develop after surgical incisions are completely healed, usually years after implant surgery.

Treatment for BIA-ALCL includes removal of the implant and scar capsule, and, if not treated early, may include chemotherapy and radiation. This diagnosis and treatment may be at my own expense and is not always covered by insurance. 

Systemic Symptoms:  Breast Implant Illness

As noted earlier, “Breast Implant Illness” should be the term used, since “systemic symptoms” is not a term that all patients would understand.  Also as noted earlier, the FDA draft guidance and draft checklist consistently imply that the number of women reporting symptoms of breast implant illness is small and that there is no research evidence that the symptoms are caused by their implants.  For example, the FDA’s draft wording that “some women report” implies that a small number of women are claiming an illness that isn’t real.  It is more accurate and meaningful to patients to say that several studies support the apparent causal link to breast implant illness symptoms (Watad et al 2017 and Colaris et al. 2017) and to symptom improvement after implants are removed (DeBoer et al. 2017), for example).  It should also state that the largest, long-term studies also indicate a statistically significant increase in certain autoimmune or connective tissue diseases, as summarized on page 2 of this document, citing Watad et al. 2018 and Coroneos et al. 2019). For that reason, ASPS, researchers, women’s health organizations, and patient groups endorse the following wording:

I understand that because of the lack of long-term safety data, we are still learning about the health problems that result from breast implants.  To date, thousands of women have reported to the FDA or to researchers that they have experienced serious health problems that several studies have linked to their breast implants. This may occur either immediately after getting implants or years later. These often include symptoms such as: joint and muscle pain or weakness, memory and concentration problems, chronic pain, depression, fatigue, chronic flu-like symptoms, migraines, or rashes and skin problems.

Several studies of women with breast implants have shown that they are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with one or more of the following diseases compared to other women:  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Multiple Sclerosis (MS); Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA); Sjögren’s syndrome; and Systemic Sclerosis/Scleroderma.

Although women who develop these symptoms or diseases can’t be certain that they were caused by breast implants, several studies indicate that most symptoms improve partially or completely after having their implants and capsules removed.

Breast-Implant Specific Risks

This heading in the FDA’s draft Checklist is misleading, since BIA-ALCL and many other risks of breast implants are specific to breast implants.  More important, this section is much too long and includes too many topic areas.

We therefore recommend the following shorter, more specific sections:

How long do breast implants last?

It’s essential that patients understand what it means when experts say that breast implants “don’t last a lifetime.”  Since many implant patients are young, some think that means they only last 30-50 years.  Even saying “the longer you have them, the more likely they are to break” can be misinterpreted to refer to 30 or 40 years later.  For that reason, the Working Group Checklist specifies “Implants may rupture or leak at any time, and that is more likely the longer you have them” and that “it is likely that I will need other surgeries related to my breast implants over the course of my life.”

The wording should be succinct, explicit, and easy to understand.  Augmentation patients are already aware that their insurance policy does not cover cosmetic surgery, but it is important for them to also know that insurance is unlikely to cover subsequent surgeries due to complications or breakage, since they might mistakenly assume that problems related to implants will be covered even if the initial cosmetic surgery is not.  We recommend the following wording:

I understand that breast implants are not expected to last for the rest of my life.  Implants may rupture or leak at any time, and that is more likely the longer you have them.  In addition, it is likely that I will need other surgeries related to my breast implants over the course of my life.  If I am a cosmetic surgery patient, my health insurance policy may refuse to cover these surgeries for removal, and probably would not cover replacement. These additional surgeries and procedures can include implant removal with or without replacement, muscle and tissue repair, scar revisions, MRI diagnostic exams, or other procedures. I understand that undergoing multiple surgeries may increase my chances of permanent breast deformity.

Chemicals and Metals in Breast Implants

Patients should be informed about the chemicals and metals in the specific make and model of breast implants they are considering.  Since the checklist is for all breast implant patients, it should include a brief, general statement about chemicals and heavy metals, but each patient should get separate, more detailed information about the specific model of implant they are considering.  We recommend the following wording for the checklist:

I understand that all breast implants contain chemicals and small amounts of heavy metals that may cause health problems. I understand that most of these chemicals are confined to the shell of the implant or stay inside the shell.  However, small quantities have been found to diffuse (bleed) from or through the implant shell, even if the implant is intact and not ruptured.

Rupture and Leakage

Patients would benefit from a section with a heading of “Rupture and Leakage.”  Although this overlaps with the issue of how long implants last, more specific information about silent rupture is important.  We recommend the following wording for the checklist, understanding that if FDA no longer recommends MRIs after 3 years, that wording should be revised, but the explicit information about the risks of silicone migration should be included:

I understand that the longer my breast implants are in place, the more likely they are to rupture, especially after the first few years. When a saline implant ruptures, it usually deflates quickly. When a silicone gel implant ruptures, I may not notice any changes and the rupture may not be detected by my doctor or by mammogram, MRI, or sonogram. I understand that an MRI is recommended for silicone gel breast implants 3 years following surgery and every 2 years after that to check for silent rupture, and that these MRIs often are not covered by health insurance. I understand that silicone may migrate from the implant into nearby tissues such as the chest wall, lymph nodes, upper abdominal wall, and into organs such as the liver or lungs where it cannot be removed. Since migrated silicone can cause health problems, it is currently recommended that any ruptured silicone implant should be removed as soon as possible. I understand that, if needed, treatment of these conditions may be at my own expense and not covered by insurance or a manufacturer warranty.

Capsular Contracture

Capsular Contracture is a common complication that therefore should have its own heading.  Our recommended wording is as follows:

I understand that one of the most common complications of breast implants is when the scar tissue capsule that forms around the implant hardens. In some cases, this can be quite painful, distort the shape of the breast, and can make mammography more painful and less accurate. Removing the implant and capsule without replacing the implant is the only recommended way to guarantee that this problem is corrected.

Breast Cancer

Breast cancer issues should be a separate heading in the checklist, not part of the section on ACLC, in order to avoid confusion.  Our recommended wording is as follows:

I understand that all breast implants can interfere with mammography and breast exams, possibly delaying the diagnosis of breast cancer. I understand that if I get breast implants, I should inform the mammography technologist about the implants and ask for additional views to improve the accuracy. I understand that mammography can also cause the breast implant to rupture or leak.

Interference with Breastfeeding

Since the data are lacking, our recommended wording is as follows:

I understand that breast implants and breast surgery may interfere with my ability to successfully breastfeed.  No long-term research has been conducted to determine the possible transmission of chemicals and heavy metals in the breast milk of women with implants.

Loss of Sensation to Breast or Nipple(s)

Many women do not understand that breast implant surgery can cause loss of sensation.  While more likely among reconstruction patients, it is important to note that augmentation patients can also experience loss of sensation or painful sensitivity.  We therefore recommend this wording:

I understand that breast implants and breast surgery may cause the nipple or breast to be painful, or to have decreased sensation. These changes may be temporary or permanent, and may affect sexual response or the ability to nurse a baby.

Cosmetic Complications

Cosmetic complications should be the last section of the checklist, because like surgical complications they are often included in standard informed consent documents.  We recommend the following brief, easy to understand, but explicit warnings, such as using the term “sag” instead of ptosis:

I understand that if my breasts had slightly different shapes before surgery, they may remain slightly different after surgery. I understand that the implants may cause the breasts to look slightly different in size or shape. I understand that the implant may move from the original placement location and that may result in asymmetry or other cosmetic problems. Breast implants can cause the breasts to sag over time due to the weight of the implants. I understand that if I am not happy with the results, I may need future surgeries to improve the appearance of my breasts.

 

FOOTNOTES:

Colaris MJ, de Boer M, van der Hulst RR, Cohen Tervaert JW. (2017) Two hundred cases of ASIA syndrome following silicone implants: a comparative study of 30 years and a review of current literature. Immunologic Research 65(1):120-128. doi: 10.1007/s12026-016-8821-y

Coroneos C, Selber J, Offodile A, et al. (2019) US FDA breast implant postapproval studies: Long-term outcomes in 99,993 patients. Annals of Surgery 269(1):30-36. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002990

De Boer M, Colaris M, van der Hulst RR, Cohen Tervaert JW (2017) Is explantation of silicone breast implants useful in patients with complaints? Immunologic Research 65(1):25-36. doi: 10.1007/s12026-016-8813-y

Watad A, Quaresma M, Brown S, et al (2017) Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome)—an update. Lupus 26(7):675-681. doi:10.1177/0961203316686406

Watad A, Rosenberg V, Tiasano S. et al. (2018) Silicone breast implants and the risk of autoimmune/rheumatic disorders: A real-world analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology. 47(6):1846-1854. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy217

 

 

Alternatives to Breast Implants: Lifts and Fat Transfers

Augmentation Decision, , , , , , ,

When considering cosmetic breast augmentation, women typically consider implants as their main option. However, there are several other procedures to change how your breasts look that may have fewer risks and complications compared to breast implants. These alternatives include breast lifts and fat transfers.

Breast Lifts

Breast lifts, clinically called a “mastopexy,” raise and reshape the breasts. Surgeons remove extra skin and tighten surrounding tissue. In addition to reshaping the breasts, a lift can reposition the nipple and reduce the size of the areola if it has become enlarged over time. Many women choose to get breast lifts to improve the stretching or sagging of their breasts that could have been caused by pregnancy, weight fluctuations, and simple gravity. A breast lift alone cannot make breasts larger, but breasts will look fuller and more perky after the procedure. 1

There are four types of breast lift techniques, which depend on breast and areola size and shape, degree of sagging, amount of skin that must be removed, and the elasticity of skin. For women who have smaller breasts or minor sagging, a crescent or donut technique can be used to create small incisions around the areola. For women who have larger breasts and more severe sagging, surgeons will need to create multiple incisions, either around the areola and vertically down the middle of the breast (a lollipop technique) or including a horizontal incision along the breast crease (an anchor technique). 2

Swelling and bruising will last for about two weeks, and numbness may last up to six weeks. Final results of breast lifts will appear over the months following the procedure as the breasts settle into their new shape and position. Results of a breast lift procedure are long-lasting, especially with a healthy lifestyle. Women with smaller breasts will likely have results that last longer than women with larger breasts. It is also important to note that the cosmetic appearance of the breasts can change due to pregnancy, breast feeding, and significant weight changes that occur after surgery. Therefore, women should consider whether they are planning a pregnancy in the near future before having a breast lift. 3

Risks of Breast Lifts 

When considering a breast lift, it is important to consider the risks of the procedures in addition to the benefits. For breast lift procedures, the most common risks include changes in nipple or breast sensation, asymmetrical breast shape, and partial or total loss of the areola.1 Less common risks that some patients experience are bleeding or hematoma formation, infection, poor incision healing, fat necrosis (fatty tissue around skin may die), and fluid accumulation. Although patients will have scars from a breast lift procedure, many notice that some scarring is hidden in natural contours of the breasts and that scars improve over time, typically within one year.3 As with any cosmetic procedure, some patients may be unhappy with the final result. Your chances of getting the results you want will be better if you choose a board certified plastic surgeon with a lot of experience doing breast lifts without breast implants.

Some plastic surgeons recommend getting both a breast lift and implants to get the best cosmetic result. However, that means patients will face the risks of the lift and the additional risks of the implants. While the breast lift procedure alone is safer than getting implants, there is still a lack of safety data and research on breast lifts to know how often complications occur in the solo procedure. The skill and experience of the plastic surgeon makes a big difference.

Fat Transfer

Fat transfers may be a good option for women who want to have more natural looking, fuller breasts without implants. Fat transfers use liposuction to remove fat from other parts of the body and insert it into the breasts. Fat for liposuction is typically taken from areas such as the back, thighs, abdomen, and buttocks. 4 Next, the fat cells are processed into a liquid so they can be injected into the breast area. 5 The surgeon will slowly inject the fat liquid to multiple areas of the breast until the desired breast size is achieved. Since the procedure uses body fat from the patient, thin women may not be good candidates for this procedure. Because the injected fat does not contain its own blood supply, only a small amount of fat can be injected at a time. Patients should not expect to gain more than one cup size. 

Patients typically notice improvement right after the procedure, but the final results will appear one year after surgery when swelling has gone down. Multiple follow-up fat transfer procedures may be necessary to maintain the shape of the breasts. In many cases, fat that has been injected into the breasts may be reabsorbed by the body over time, move to other parts of the body, or die, causing breasts to lose volume.5 Therefore, surgeons may recommend follow-up sessions to repeat the procedure, which may be expensive and is an important factor to consider.

Risks of Fat Transfers

High patient and surgeon satisfaction as well as low complication rates have been reported for fat transfer procedures, but outcomes vary greatly based on the surgeon as the procedure is not yet standardized. 6, 7 The most common complications from fat transfers include development of cysts (lumps) or fat necrosis, which is when the transferred fat dies and is reabsorbed by the body. 8 Fat necrosis is more common when a large amount of fat is injected. This usually does not need to be treated, as the body takes care of the dead cells on its own. 

Other less common complications can include infection and calcification of the fat.8 Like fat necrosis, these complications are more common when a large amount of fat is injected. Because the injected fat does not have its own blood supply, too much injected fat may lead to microcalcifications, which is when the fat hardens. These calcifications are usually harmless, but they may look like breast cancer on a mammogram, resulting in stressful and expensive breast biopsies.

Bottom Line

Despite risks, lifts and fat transfers appear to be safer than breast implants. Breast implants are not lifetime devices, and women should expect additional surgery to replace them every 10-15 years if not more often. Health insurance often does not pay for removal or complications for augmentation patients and never pays for replacement of cosmetic implants. The high cost of these additional surgeries, as well as the common complications from implants, make lifts and transfers a safer option for many patients.

While breast lifts and fat transfers provide alternatives to breast implants for cosmetic breast enhancement, patients must consider the risks of both procedures before choosing to undergo surgery. More long-term research is needed to confirm the safety and effectiveness of both procedures.

When deciding whether or not to undergo cosmetic breast augmentation, it is important to weigh the risks and benefits of each procedure with a highly skilled, experienced surgeon who is board certified in plastic surgery, so you can make a decision that is right for you. 

Breast Implant Illness: Two Metro Women Say Implants Caused Years of Complications

Helpful Articles, ,
Ben Oldach, WHO TV: May 21, 2018.

Breast implants are the most popular form of plastic surgery in the United States. Katie Krug’s followed a botched breast reduction.

“There were quite a few people that asked me when I was in a bathing suit if I had open heart surgery, so it was something that I was really self-conscious about,” said Krug. […]

“About a year later is when I started noticing some really small symptoms. I was tired a lot more, started having some brain fog, started being really sensitive to smells, and then it just seemed like every year it got worse,” said Krug. […]

Both women say they went to doctors who couldn’t figure out what was wrong, all while new symptoms were developing. […] and after doing some research found a Facebook group of 35,000 women, all claiming similar symptoms.

The women in the group believe they are suffering or had suffered from something being called breast implant illness, although experts say it’s a symptomatic reaction rather than an actual disease. […]

Miller and Krug consulted with a local plastic surgeon who performs explants and had theirs removed. They say they immediately started feeling better. […]

Read the original article here.