Paul E Chasan1. 1. La Jolla, Calif. From private practice and the University of California, San Diego.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate over the legitimacy of silicone as a safe tool for soft-tissue augmentation has spanned well over half a century. Proponents concede that injections of questionable purity and/or of massive quantities have produced unfavorable outcomes. They assert that in experienced hands with "injectable-grade" silicone, there are very few problems. Despite these claims, the literature is replete with disastrous outcomes following silicone fluid injection, often many years after the initial treatment. METHODS: An extensive review of the English-language literature was conducted using MEDLINE. RESULTS: A comprehensive review of injectable silicones was completed, revealing the origins, misuses, early clinical trials, and support for and against the injection of silicone fluids for the augmentation of soft tissues. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the history of injectable silicone fluids for soft-tissue augmentation can give insight into the pitfalls and complications surrounding its use. There has been an evolution in the technique and type of products used for soft-tissue augmentation. In its current use, silicone oil for permanent soft-tissue augmentation could be a very powerful tool. There is some literature that supports the use of a small amount of purified, high-viscosity silicone oil; however, there has not been a single longitudinal study to date with appropriate follow-up data. The unanswered question remains: Are the risks worth the potential benefits of silicone oil as a permanent filler?
BACKGROUND: The debate over the legitimacy of silicone as a safe tool for soft-tissue augmentation has spanned well over half a century. Proponents concede that injections of questionable purity and/or of massive quantities have produced unfavorable outcomes. They assert that in experienced hands with "injectable-grade" silicone, there are very few problems. Despite these claims, the literature is replete with disastrous outcomes following silicone fluid injection, often many years after the initial treatment. METHODS: An extensive review of the English-language literature was conducted using MEDLINE. RESULTS: A comprehensive review of injectable silicones was completed, revealing the origins, misuses, early clinical trials, and support for and against the injection of silicone fluids for the augmentation of soft tissues. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the history of injectable silicone fluids for soft-tissue augmentation can give insight into the pitfalls and complications surrounding its use. There has been an evolution in the technique and type of products used for soft-tissue augmentation. In its current use, silicone oil for permanent soft-tissue augmentation could be a very powerful tool. There is some literature that supports the use of a small amount of purified, high-viscosity silicone oil; however, there has not been a single longitudinal study to date with appropriate follow-up data. The unanswered question remains: Are the risks worth the potential benefits of silicone oil as a permanent filler?
Authors: Alexander Leyva; Tri Tran; Andrew T Cibulas; David Warden; Franklin J Danger; Kurt Scherer; Christopher Wasyliw Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-09-13