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.

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.

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.

A Practical Guide to Managing Patients With Systemic Symptoms and Breast Implants.

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. A thorough history and assessment of symptoms, including appropriate laboratory tests, may identify underlying conditions to expeditiously address patients' health issues through a specialist referral. Diagnosing and treating disorders that are causing a patient's symptoms, if unrelated to their implant, would avoid a potentially unnecessary surgery. Ultimately, better information is needed to reliably guide patients in an evidence-based fashion. Long-term follow-up of patients who are explanted to see what symptoms may or may not improve could be useful in educating patients. Control groups in studies prospectively following women with implants for development of systemic symptoms would also be useful because the symptoms reported are common in women without implants. Cases are presented to illustrate the recommendations for a practical approach toward management of women reporting systemic symptoms with 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.

Management of Asymptomatic Patients With Textured Surface Breast Implants.

With the recent voluntary recall by Allergan of their Biocell textured implants, many plastic surgeons are left with questions of how to best manage asymptomatic patients who have concerns about having these devices. We realized that there is no clear, published recommendations or scientific data to guide surgeons on how to discuss options with their patients and recommendations for surgical management in this uncharted territory. Using available literature and personal experience, we answer the most common questions we are hearing from our plastic surgery colleagues.

Surgical Breast Pocket Irrigation With Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl): An In Vivo Evaluation of Pocket Protein Content and Potential HOCl Antimicrobial Capacity.

Background: Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) demonstrates rapid and broad antimicrobial activity against planktonic and biofilm phenotype bacteria in vitro. Objectives: To identify the protein content present in breast pockets in vivo and calculate the estimated active concentration of HOCl, (PhaseOne, Integrated Healing Technologies, Franklin, TN) following HOCl-protein interactions. Methods: Fluid samples were collected prior to implant insertion in 18 consecutive patients, representing 36 pocket samples, with all cases being bilateral primary breast augmentations. Samples were evaluated by an independent CLIA approved laboratory for albumin and total protein concentration in g/dL. Results were compared to HOCl solution concentration and protein binding potential to determine availability of free HOCl. Results: The mean tissue sample concentration (right and left breast) was 31.6 mg/dL which translates to 0.0001 mmol per 20 cc of interstitial fluid. Mean total protein levels (right and left breast) were 62.3 mg/dL or 0.000187 mmol per 20 cc interstitial fluid. Based upon potential stoichiometric neutralization of HOCl by proteins in either a 1:1 or 3:1 ratio, using 115 cc of HOCl solution (per breast) at a concentration of 250 ppm/mL or 0.025% HOCl or = 0.48 mmol HOCl/dL, there would be 2950 times the amount of active HOCl at a 1:1 reaction ratio, or 983 times more HOCl assuming a 3:1 reaction ratio. Based on the range of identified levels of protein in individual surgical pockets in the study, there is an estimated 242 to 12,500 times more HOCl molecules than protein at a 3:1 molar ratio of binding or reactive protein. Conclusions: n estimated range of 983-2950 times more HOCl molecules are present during irrigation with 230 cc of PhaseOne® (115 cc for each breast) than available protein. This supports the antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activity as described in previous in vitro studies when using PhaseOne® as part of pocket irrigation.

Results of the Postmarket Clinical Study of the Sientra 207 Highly Cohesive Gel Breast Implants in Primary and Revision Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Board-certified plastic surgeons utilizing the Sientra 207 Highly Cohesive Gel breast implants provided their initial satisfaction with usage and postoperative results on primary and revision augmentation patients, and study participants provided their satisfaction with surgical result. METHODS: Up to 15 participating investigators at institutional review board-approved sites enrolled up to 180 women who received Sientra 207 implants for primary augmentation or revision augmentation procedures. Investigator and participant assessments were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: All participating surgeons found the implants to be easy or very easy to implant, and 92 percentage reported satisfaction with surgical results. Patients receiving these implants reported similarly high rates of satisfaction (94%). CONCLUSION: With this combination of high satisfaction and low complication rates, the Sientra 207 silicone breast implants now provide a welcome addition to plastic surgeons' breast implant options.

Factors Affecting Women's Success in Academic and Private Practice Plastic Surgery.

Because plastic surgery trainees generally spend the majority of their training in academic centers and may have minimal exposure to other practice models, it can be difficult to decide which is the best route to achieve satisfaction and success. Surgeons need to be aware of benefits and challenges associated with different practice models and with workplace factors in general that contribute to happiness at work. This article reviews common practice models and provide specific and practical advice for the female surgeon.

Sientra primary and revision augmentation rupture trending and analysis with magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: Rupture of silicone gel breast implants is a rare occurrence but remains one of the key surgical concerns. The objective of this article was to provide visibility and information on trends for the impact that patient and surgical characteristics play in the occurrence of rupture. OBJECTIVES: Examine trends in surgical techniques to better understand the etiology of implant rupture. METHODS: Analysis was based on Sientra's prospective, open-label, U.S.-based clinical study of High-Strength Cohesive silicone breast implants. Patient and surgical characteristics were compared between ruptured and intact implants. RESULTS: The subset of data used for this analysis included 1792 implants in 935 primary and revision augmentation patients implanted by 31 plastic surgeons, with an average follow-up of 6.6 years. The results confirm that rupture remains a rare adverse event. Overall, the rupture prevalence for this study was 2.4%. Rupture prevalence was lower among textured devices (0.8%) compared to smooth devices (3.8%). The prevalence of rupture was 7.8% among devices placed with a transaxillary incision site compared to 1.6% and 3.0% when placed with an inframammary or periareolar incision site, respectively. Rupture was reported in 5.5% of the devices that received steroid pocket irrigation, compared to 1.8% of the devices that did not. CONCLUSIONS: Although ruptures in the Sientra study with the High-Strength Cohesive silicone gel implants were an uncommon occurrence, the authors were able to identify strong trends for the association of certain surgical factors and characteristics. The results show among other factors that an inframammary approach and a textured device were found to be protective against rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Therapeutic.

Sientra portfolio of Silimed brand shaped implants with high-strength silicone gel: a 5-year primary augmentation clinical study experience and a postapproval experience-results from a single-surgeon 108-patient series.

BACKGROUND: The Sientra portfolio of silicone gel breast implants was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on March 9, 2012, and included the first approved shaped implants in the United States. The 5-year results from Sientra's Core Gel and Continued Access Study and the results of a single surgeon are presented. METHODS: This analysis used the data of 640 shaped implants in 321 primary augmentation patients implanted by 16 study surgeons through 5 years. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze safety endpoints. In addition, analysis is presented for a single surgeon's results of 213 shaped implants in 108 postapproval patients through up to 16 months of follow-up (9-month mean) using a separate frequency analysis. RESULTS: The overall risk of rupture for primary augmentation patients through 5 years was 0.4%, the risk of infection was 1.4%, and the risk of capsular contracture (Baker grade III/IV) was 3.9%. Reported surgeon satisfaction was 100%, and patient satisfaction remained high. In the separate single-surgeon analysis, after 16 months, 4 of the 108 patients experienced a complication (3.7%) and 3 underwent a reoperation (2.8%). Complications included infection, ptosis (0.9%, each), and capsular contracture (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of Sientra's large clinical study and the postapproval data from a single surgeon demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of Sientra's shaped implants. The review of the data and author's experience illustrate the ease of incorporating shaped implants into any surgical practice.

Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty.

The use of ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty (UAL) to assist in the removal of subcutaneous fat has been practiced in Europe for nearly 15 years and over the last 7 years has gained popularity in the United States. Liposuction is now one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures by board-certified plastic surgeons. This article will review the UAL procedure, its history, regulatory issues, instrumentation and equipment needed. It will also review changes and recent updates, clinical protocol, complications, and future considerations.