Microbes, Histology, Blood Analysis, Enterotoxins, and Cytokines: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 3.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing need to acquire rigorous scientific data to answer the concerns of physicians, patients, and the FDA regarding the self-reported illness identified as breast implant illness (BII). There are no diagnostic tests or specific laboratory values to explain the reported systemic symptoms described by these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if there are quantifiable laboratory findings that can be identified in blood, capsule tissue pathology, or microbes that differentiate women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants from 2 control groups. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 subjects into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who did not have symptoms attributed to implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue underwent detailed analysis and blood was sent from all 3 cohorts to evaluate for markers of inflammation. RESULTS: No significant histologic differences were identified between the cohorts, except there were more capsules with synovial metaplasia in the non-BII cohort. There was no statistical difference in thyroid-stimulating hormone, vitamin D levels, or complete blood count with differential between the cohorts. Next-generation sequencing revealed no statistically significant difference in positivity between Cohort A and B. Of the 12 cytokines measured, 3 cytokines, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-13, and IL-22, were found to be significantly more often elevated in sera of subjects in Cohort A than in Cohorts B or C. The enterotoxin data demonstrated an elevation in immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A in Cohort A. There was no correlation between the presence of IgE or IgG anti-Staphylococcal antibody and a positive next-generation sequencing result. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the current literature by demonstrating few identifiable biomedical markers to explain the systemic symptoms self-reported by patients with BII.

Longevity of Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement and Potential Etiologies: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 4.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) describes a variety of symptoms reported by patients with breast implants. Biospecimens data revealed minimal statistical differences between BII and non-BII cohorts. Baseline analysis of PROMIS data demonstrated significant differences between the BII cohort and the 2 control cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine if patients in the BII cohort obtained any symptom improvement after explantation, whether symptom improvement was related to the type of capsulectomy, and which symptoms improved. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive patients divided equally into 3 cohorts. Baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, were obtained at baseline, 3 to 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were enrolled between 2019 and 2021. Follow-up at 1 year included 94% of the BII cohort and 77% of non-BII and mastopexy cohorts. At 1 year, 88% of patients showed at least partial symptom improvement, with a reduction of 2 to 20 symptoms. The PROMIS score in the BII cohort decreased at 1 year for anxiety, sleep disturbances, and fatigue. Systemic symptom improvement was noted out to 1 year in the BII cohort regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed. CONCLUSIONS: Parts 1-3 in this series concluded that there were no consistent differences in biospecimen results between the cohorts. Unlike the data observed in the biospecimen analysis, BII patients had heightened symptoms and poorer PROMIS scores at baseline compared to the control cohorts. The reduction of negative expectations and a potential nocebo effect could contribute to this improvement.

Heavy Metals in Breast Implant Capsules and Breast Tissue: Findings from the Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 2.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII), as described in recent medical literature and by social media, describes a range of symptoms in patients with breast implants for which there are no physical findings or laboratory results that explain their symptoms. OBJECTIVES: Part 2 of this study aims to determine whether heavy metals are present in the capsules around saline and silicone implants and if there are statistical differences in the type or level of these metals between women with or without symptoms. Demographic data was collected to investigate potential alternate sources of metals: inhaled, absorbed, or ingested. METHODS: A prospective, blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into in three cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal, (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants, and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue was removed from Cohort A and B for analysis of 22 heavy metals. Additionally, breast tissue was obtained from a control group with no previous exposure to any implanted medical device. RESULTS: The study was performed between 2019-2021. Heavy metal content was compared between the capsule tissue from Cohort A and B. The only statistically significant differences identified in Cohort A were higher levels of arsenic and zinc, and lower levels of cobalt, manganese, silver, and tin. There were no elevated levels or statistically significant differences in the other metals tested between Cohorts A and B. CONCLUSIONS: This study analyzes the metal content in capsules surrounding both saline and silicone breast implants. Heavy metals were also detected in the non-implant control group breast tissue, with some metals at numerically higher levels than either breast implant cohort. Smoking, gluten free diets, dietary supplements, and the presence of tattoos were all identified as statistically significant sources of arsenic and zinc in Cohort A. The risk of heavy metal toxicity should not be used as an indication for total capsulectomy if patients elect to remove their breast implants.

Impact of Capsulectomy Type on Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 1.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used to describe a variety of symptoms by patients with breast implants for which there are no abnormal physical or laboratory findings to explain their symptoms. There currently exists a difference of opinion among clinicians and patients concerning the diagnosis and treatment of patients self-reporting BII. OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to determine if there is a valid indication for "en bloc" capsulectomy in patients self-reporting BII and if the type of capsulectomy performed alters long-term symptom improvement. The second goal was to identify any clinical laboratory differences between the cohorts. This study was funded by the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF). METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. The subject's baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, was obtained before surgery and at 3-6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Blood was collected from all 3 cohorts and implant capsules were collected from Cohorts A and B. RESULTS: 150 patients were enrolled between 2019-2021. Follow-up at 3-6 weeks for all 3 cohorts was between 98%-100%, 78%-98% at 6-months, and 1 year data is currently at 80%. The type of capsulectomy; intact total, total, or partial all showed similar symptom improvement with no statistical difference in the reduction of symptoms based on the type of capsulectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses one of the most discussed questions by plastic surgeons, patients, their advocates, and social media. The findings show that patients who self-report BII demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms after explantation and that this improvement persists for at least 6 months. This improvement in self-reported systemic symptoms was seen regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed.

Characterizing the Microbiome of the Contracted Breast Capsule Using Next Generation Sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Recent work suggests that bacterial biofilms play a role in capsular contracture (CC). However, traditional culture techniques provide only a limited understanding of the bacterial communities present within the contracted breast. Next generation sequencing (NGS) represents an evolution of polymerase chain reaction technology that can sequence all DNA present in a given sample. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to utilize NGS to characterize the bacterial microbiome of the capsule in patients with CC following cosmetic breast augmentation. METHODS: We evaluated 32 consecutive patients with Baker grade III or IV CC following augmentation mammoplasty. Specimens were obtained from all contracted breasts (n = 53) during capsulectomy. Tissue specimens from contracted capsules as well as intraoperative swabs of the breast capsule and implant surfaces were obtained. Samples were sent to MicroGenDX Laboratories (Lubbock, TX) for NGS. RESULTS: Specimens collected from 18 of 32 patients (56%) revealed the presence of microbial DNA. The total number of positive samples was 22 of 53 (42%). Sequencing identified a total of 120 unique bacterial species and 6 unique fungal species. Specimens with microbial DNA yielded a mean [standard deviation] of 8.27 [4.8] microbial species per patient. The most frequently isolated species were Escherichia coli (25% of all isolates), Diaphorobacter nitroreducens (12%), Cutibacterium acnes (12%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (11%), fungal species (7%), and Staphylococcus aureus (6%). CONCLUSIONS: NGS enables characterization of the bacterial ecosystem surrounding breast implants in unprecedented detail. This is a critical step towards understanding the role this microbiome plays in the development of CC.

Device-Specific Findings of Imprinted-Texture Breast Implants: Characteristics, Risks, and Benefits.

BACKGROUND: The relative risks and benefits of various textured breast implants are the focus of considerable discussion. Studies have suggested different risk-benefit profiles for different implant surface topographies. OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to provide device-specific, quantitative information on Mentor's imprinted Siltex Textured breast implants with respect to textured surface characteristics and ISO 14607 classification, risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and risk-reduction benefits relative to smooth implants. METHODS: Surface metrology was performed. Data for smooth and Siltex implants from the prospective MemoryGel Core Study were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis for the most frequently occurring postoperative complications in augmentation and reconstruction leading to subsequent reoperation. RESULTS: The overall average surface roughness for Siltex MemoryGel and MemoryShape implants was 29.5 and 36.1 µm, respectively. A statistically significantly lower rate of reoperation in patients with Siltex compared with smooth devices over 10 years was observed for both capsular contracture in subglandular primary augmentation patients (4.21% vs 19.84%) and for asymmetry in primary reconstruction patients (3.88% vs 11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Surface analysis demonstrated that Siltex implants fall within the ISO 14607 category of "microtexture" breast implants. These devices exhibited a rare risk of BIA-ALCL (0.0012%) based on the most extensive data available. Relative to smooth implants, these Siltex devices provided risk-reduction benefits for the most common reason of reoperation in patients who underwent primary augmentation (capsular contracture) or primary reconstruction (asymmetry) in the Core Study. These findings provide valuable risk-benefit information for surgeons and their patients.

Risk of breast implant bacterial contamination from endogenous breast flora, prevention with nipple shields, and implications for biofilm formation.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture (CC) is a common complication of breast augmentation that is thought to arise from bacterial contamination and subsequent biofilm formation on the implant. Endogenous breast flora expressed through the nipple may contaminate the sterile field during breast augmentation, acting as a possible source for initiation of biofilm formation. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigate the incidence of nipple bacterial contamination with endogenous breast flora after standard chest wall sterilization during breast augmentation. METHODS: Bacterial contamination of nipples and nipple shields was assessed in a series of 32 consecutive patients presenting for breast augmentation (63 breasts: 31 bilateral procedures and 1 unilateral procedure). After standard sterilization of the chest wall, occlusive nipple shields were applied and breast augmentation was performed. At the conclusion of breast augmentation, the nipple shields were removed and, using the same swab, both the nipple/areolar area and occlusive dressings were cultured. RESULTS: Data from 63 cultured nipples and nipple shields revealed that 22 nipples/nipple shields (34.9%) were positive for bacterial contamination. Three patients, all of whom had negative cultures, developed CC after augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: The exposed nipple is a potential source of implant contamination during breast augmentation. An improved understanding of biofilms and related risk factors for CC can provide surgeons with insights for addressing this common complication. Meticulous hemostasis, use of nipple shields, and submuscular device placement may contribute to a lower incidence of CC.

Approaching temporomandibular disorders from a new direction: a randomized controlled clinical trial of the TMDes ear system.

TMDes (Registered Trademark of Ascentia Health, Inc., Rockford, Illinois), custom-fit ear inserts to aid in reducing temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain, were evaluated in a prospective, three-month, open-label, three-arm, randomized, unblinded clinical trial, which included patients with TMD diagnoses (RDC/TMD) of myofascial pain, arthralgia, and/or disc displacement with reduction; and a screening VAS pain score of > 4. The three treatment groups included: TMDes (n = 60), stabilization splint (n = 64), and jaw exercise regimen (n = 28). The mean change in Craniomandibular Index (CMI) scores (reductions reflecting improvement) from baseline to one month were -27% (TMDes), -20% (stabilization splint), -12% (jaw exercise regimen), and from baseline to three months were -45%, -41%, -36%, reflecting statistically significant noninferiority (p = 0.0096) of the TMDes to the stabilization splint (primary efficacy endpoint). The TMDes produced significant (p < 0.0001) mean changes in VAS pain scores from baseline of -46% at one month and -58% at three months and demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to the stabilization splint.

Results from the MemoryGel Post-approval Study.

The approval of Mentor MemoryGel Breast Implants in November 2006 was conditional on conducting a 10-year study designed to collect long-term experience in US women with MemoryGel Breast Implants, known as the MemoryGel Post-Approval Study. METHODS: This prospective, observational 10-year follow-up study used a current cohort design that began in 2007, which included both MemoryGel Breast Implant participants and concurrent saline controls to assess rheumatologic and neurologic signs and symptoms. The protocol was amended in 2015, which limited the scope of further data collection for the study to only secondary procedure/re-operation data for MemoryGel participants. RESULTS: Primary augmentation (n = 6743), revision augmentation (n = 2071), primary reconstruction (n = 1763), and revision reconstruction (n = 557) participants were enrolled in the Re-operation Phase Safety Set. Kaplan-Meier-estimated 10-year cumulative incidence of re-operation and explantation on a participant-level were 10.5% and 4.2% (primary augmentation), 14.1% and 7.7% (revision augmentation), 20.8% and 12.8% (primary reconstruction), and 25.0% and 16.6% (revision reconstruction). CONCLUSIONS: The Re-operation Phase of the post-approval study addressed the Kaplan-Meier implant removal and re-operation rates over time, and provided the reasons for re-operation over time. Overall, no significant new hazards, increased risk, or unexpected adverse events were identified in the MemoryGel Post-Approval Study Re-operation Phase Safety Set.

MemoryGel Breast Implants: Final Safety and Efficacy Results after 10 Years of Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Mentor MemoryGel Breast Implants were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November of 2006. Patients in the Core clinical study supporting this approval were followed for 10 years. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, clinical study included primary augmentation, revision augmentation, primary reconstruction, and revision reconstruction patients implanted with smooth or Siltex Texture MemoryGel Implants. Incidence, severity, and method of resolution for all postoperative complications were assessed on per-patient and per-implant bases. The primary effectiveness endpoints were overall mean change in chest circumference and bra cup size following the implantation procedure. RESULTS: Primary augmentation (n = 552), revision augmentation (n = 145), primary reconstruction (n = 251), and revision reconstruction (n = 60) patients were enrolled in the study. Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates for key complications at the subject level for Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture were as follows: primary augmentation, 12.1 percent; revision augmentation, 24.4 percent; primary reconstruction, 20.5 percent; and revision reconstruction, 36.9 percent. For infection, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 1.6 percent; revision augmentation, 1.4 percent; primary reconstruction, 6.2 percent; and revision reconstruction, 0 percent. For explantation with or without replacement, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 11.6 percent; revision augmentation, 24.1 percent; primary reconstruction, 33.4 percent; and revision reconstruction; 37.8 percent. For rupture, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 24.2 percent; revision augmentation, 23.7 percent; primary reconstruction, 32.7 percent; and revision reconstruction, 38.7 percent. For any reoperation, rates were as follows: primary augmentation, 25.5 percent; revision augmentation, 43.6 percent; primary reconstruction, 49.0 percent; and revision reconstruction, 50.7 percent. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that MemoryGel Implants are safe and effective for use in women undergoing breast augmentation or reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Breast Implant Engineering and Performance.

The engineering of breast implants for both augmentation and reconstruction is centered on facilitating optimal aesthetic results pleasing to the patient, while minimizing both short- and long-term complications. Some of the key individual design elements that have been the primary focus over time have included gel cohesivity, shell thickness, shell surface, and implant gel fill. A review of these separate elements points to the potential benefits of increased focus on a combined overall performance perspective for engineering of new implants as exemplified in the recently introduced MemoryGel Xtra Breast Implants. Such an approach is expected to provide an improved and expanded range of options to facilitate obtaining desired aesthetic outcomes and long-term clinical performance.

Mentor Contour Profile Gel Implants: Clinical Outcomes at 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Contour Profile Gel/MemoryShape breast implants consist of a textured silicone elastomer shell filled with silicone gel. The objective of this clinical study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of Contour Profile Gel/MemoryShape breast implants in women who were undergoing primary breast augmentation, primary breast reconstruction, or revision surgery (revision-augmentation or revision-reconstruction). METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical study involving Contour Profile Gel/MemoryShape breast implants in 955 female subjects, including 572 primary augmentation, 124 revision-augmentation, 190 primary reconstruction, and 69 revision-reconstruction subjects. Safety was assessed based on the incidence, severity, and method of resolution of all complications. Endpoints were examined on both a per-subject and a per-implant basis. RESULTS: For the primary augmentation, revision-augmentation, primary reconstruction, and revision-reconstruction cohorts, the Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year cumulative incidence rates for the key complications at the subject level were as follows: Baker grade III/IV capsular contracture, 3.6 (primary augmentation), 15.5 (revision-augmentation), 14.3 (primary reconstruction), and 16.4 (revision-reconstruction) percent; infection, 0.7 (primary augmentation), 1.9 (revision-augmentation), 1.6 (primary reconstruction), and 2.9 (revision-reconstruction) percent; explantation with or without replacement, 9.2 (primary augmentation), 25.9 (revision-augmentation), 34.1 (primary reconstruction), and 49.0 (revision-reconstruction) percent; explantation with replacement with study device, 4.0 (primary augmentation), 10.8 (revision-augmentation), 16.7 (primary reconstruction), and 27.9 (revision-reconstruction) percent; and any reoperation, 22.3 (primary augmentation), 35.0 (revision-augmentation), 52.7 (primary reconstruction), and 59.7 (revision-reconstruction) percent. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that Contour Profile Gel/MemoryShape breast implants are safe and effective for primary and revision breast augmentation and reconstruction for women at least 22 years old.