Symptom Improvement After Explantation With No Capsulectomy for Systemic Symptoms Associated With Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: The previously published Aesthetic Foundation (ASERF) biospecimen study documented systemic symptom improvement after implant removal regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed. A limitation of that study was that all subjects had at least some capsule removed for biospecimen analysis of heavy metals, microbes, and capsule histology. OBJECTIVES: Systemic symptoms associated with breast implants (SSBI) describes a group of patients who attribute a variety of symptoms to their implants. Previous studies have shown symptom improvement after implant removal in these patients which is independent of whether part or all the implant capsule has been removed. This study evaluates implant removal with no capsule removed in symptomatic and control subjects. METHODS: Eligible study subjects were sequentially enrolled at five investigator sites. The SSBI Cohort included patients with systemic symptoms they attributed to their implants requesting explantation. The non-SSBI Cohort included subjects without systemic symptoms attributed to their implants, requesting explantation with or without replacement. All subjects agreed to undergo explantation without removal of any capsule. RESULTS: Systemic symptom improvement was noted in SSBI subjects without removal of the implant capsule, comparable to the results of our previously published study. SSBI patients showed a 74% reduction in self-reported symptoms at six months with no capsulectomy which was not statistically different from partial or total capsulectomies (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Explantation with or without capsulectomy provides symptom improvement in patients with systemic symptoms they associate with their implants.

CD30 Lateral Flow and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detection of BIA-ALCL: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) commonly presents as a peri-implant effusion (seroma). CD30 (TNFRSF8) is a consistent marker of tumor cells but also can be expressed by activated lymphocytes in benign seromas. Diagnosis of BIA-ALCL currently includes cytology and detection of CD30 by immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry, but these studies require specialized equipment and pathologists' interpretation. We hypothesized that a CD30 lateral flow assay (LFA) could provide a less costly rapid test for soluble CD30 that eventually could be used by non-specialized personnel for point-of-care diagnosis of BIA-ALCL. METHODS: We performed LFA for CD30 and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for 15 patients with pathologically confirmed BIA-ALCL and 10 patients with benign seromas. To determine the dynamic range of CD30 detection by LFA, we added recombinant CD30 protein to universal buffer at seven different concentrations ranging from 125 pg/mL to 10,000 pg/mL. We then performed LFA for CD30 on cryopreserved seromas of 10 patients with pathologically confirmed BIA-ALCL and 10 patients with benign seromas. RESULTS: Recombinant CD30 protein added to universal buffer produced a distinct test line at concentrations higher than 1000 pg/mL and faint test lines at 250-500 pg/mL. LFA produced a positive test line for all BIA-ALCL seromas undiluted and for 8 of 10 malignant seromas at 1:10 dilution, whereas 3 of 10 benign seromas were positive undiluted but all were negative at 1:10 dilution. Undiluted CD30 LFA had a sensitivity of 100.00%, specificity of 70.00%, positive predictive value of 76.92%, and negative predictive value of 100.00% for BIA-ALCL. When specimens were diluted 1:10, sensitivity was reduced to 80.00% but specificity and positive predictive values increased to 100.00%, while negative predictive value was reduced to 88.33%. When measured by ELISA, CD30 was below 1200 pg/mL in each of six benign seromas, whereas seven BIA-ALCL seromas contained CD30 levels > 2300 pg/mL, in all but one case calculated from dilutions of 1:10 or 1:50. CONCLUSIONS: BIA-ALCL seromas can be distinguished from benign seromas by CD30 ELISA and LFA, but LFA requires less time (<20 min) and can be performed without special equipment by non-specialized personnel, suggesting future point-of-care testing for BIA-ALCL may be feasible.

Separating Myth from Reality in Breast Implants: An Overview of 30 Years of Experience.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this article is to review the pivotal events in the history of breast implants in the United States, including the events leading to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration moratorium on the use of silicone gel implants and subsequent approval; the emergence of breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL); and persistent concerns about an association between breast implants, autoimmune disease, and systemic symptoms. This article reviews the medical literature to outline our current knowledge on BIA-ALCL; offers recommendations for diagnosis and management of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with textured implants; and reviews the science of potential associations of implants with autoimmune and systemic symptoms. The authors hope to help patients separate myths from reality and make educated decisions on having breast implants placed or removed.

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.

The Efficacy and Associated Learning Curve of Office-Based High-Resolution Ultrasound to Detect Shell Failure in Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) is widely employed in plastic surgery practices to detect implant rupture prior to revisional surgery. Published research has found a good overall accuracy of shell failure detection. The literature often references a learning curve associated with incorporating this imaging technique into a medical practice, but it has yet to be visualized or defined. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to calculate current testing statistics for use of HRUS to detect shell failure and to define the learning curve associated with the predicted improvement reflected by statistics of test and surgeon proficiency. METHODS: A retrospective review of sequential in-office HRUSs on patients with breast implants was conducted across 2 plastic surgery practices. Preoperative ultrasound reports and intraoperative findings were compared. Test statistics were calculated for each group of 10 subsequent patients, and a regression analysis was performed to define the learning curve. RESULTS: A total of 480 implants were examined and averages for all test statistics were calculated. All were higher than most of the previously reported literature standards. The regression analysis showed a linear improvement for both sensitivity and specificity over time, with significant improvement in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Results show that HRUS is highly effective in detecting shell failure in breast implants. There is also a calculable linear improvement for all test values of the HRUS over time. Surgeons were able to remain above the literature standard for sensitivity after their 60th HRUS reading. This improvement shows that continued use and practice of the imaging technique allow for more accurate findings.

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.

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.

Conflict of Interest in Research and Publication: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?

Traditionally scientists and industry have collaborated to contribute to the development of new drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Conflicts of interest (COI) may develop among surgeons and academic researchers, especially during the process of refinement of techniques and the marketing and sale of devices. Dramatic examples of COI occurred over the last 50 years, leading to strict regulations designed to reduce COI at research institutions. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors created COI guidelines to help authors and editors ensure clear, reproducible, and unbiased medical articles. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act was designed to increase transparency of financial relationships between physicians and industry. However, in some cases authors and scientists are not obligated to fully disclose their COI. Only direct payments are required to be reported, not indirect payments to faculty at large academic institutions, allowing some to take advantage of the exceptions to the disclosure requirements whereas others must disclose payment for their work effort. Based on prominent scandals, regulations aimed at reducing industry influence in research and publication may fail to recognize the potential benefits of collaboration and produce a narrow-minded view of trust. Where should an editorial board or an academic institution draw the line?

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.