Literature DB >> 22405818

The PIP mammary prosthesis: a product recall study.

M G Berry1, Jan J Stanek.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Concerns about the durability of silicone breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) have been expressed for several years prior to their formal withdrawal from the market in March 2010. Although precise details of what elements were at fault remain unclear, concerns have been raised about both the elastomer and the filler gel. Media speculation has focussed on device safety, longevity and, recently, a possible association with lymphoma, specifically anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). There is however, no actual data concerning these implants with which to guide and inform when concerned patients seek advice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PIP mammary prostheses were used by the senior author for both primary and revision breast augmentation (BA) during the period January 2000-August 2005. A database of patients was constructed and attempts made to contact each patient offering a free consultation and referral for ultrasound scan (USS). Chief outcome measures included secondary surgery, the implant rupture rate and time to rupture.
RESULTS: 453 consecutive patients with PIP devices were identified. Of this number 30 had already undergone implant exchange for a variety of reasons. 180 (39.7%) could not be contacted and 19 had undergone explantation elsewhere, including the NHS. Of those who could be contacted, 47 declined consultation as they had no concerns. 97 had neither clinical signs nor radiographic evidence of implant rupture and elected to remain under regular review. At the time of writing, 38 have undergone implant exchange after ultrasonographic indication of rupture and the overall patient rupture rate for the PIP implant is 15.9-33.8%. This cohort correlates reduced implant longevity with each successive year from 2000 and no cases of ALCL have been diagnosed. DISCUSSION: Long-term studies such as this are difficult to undertake for a number of reasons as they place a significant additional burden of resources on a practice. They are, however, essential from an industry perspective both for the provision of information and supporting audit and professional standing. Being only a single-handed practice, this initial study is the tip of an iceberg that may affect 40,000 women in the UK with PIP implants, but it does provide some hard data with which to guide our patients. It is also believed to be the first independent product recall study in aesthetic breast surgery.
Copyright © 2012 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22405818     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  11 in total

1.  Regulation of medical devices used in diabetology in Europe: time for reform?

Authors:  A J M Boulton; S Del Prato
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  PIP breast implants: rupture rate and correlation with breast cancer.

Authors:  M Moschetta; M Telegrafo; I Cornacchia; L Vincenti; V Ranieri; A Cirili; L Rella; A A Stabile Ianora; G Angelelli
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec

3.  Silicone granuloma from ruptured breast implants as a cause of cervical lymphadenopathy.

Authors:  K Borghol; G Gallagher; B L Skelly
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Evaluating the feasibility of extended partial mastectomy and immediate reduction mammoplasty reconstruction as an alternative to mastectomy.

Authors:  Kimito Yamada; Norio Kohno
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2012-11

5.  Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study.

Authors:  Jonathan A Cook; Mathew Baldwin; Cushla Cooper; Navraj S Nagra; Joanna C Crocker; Molly Glaze; Gemma Greenall; Amar Rangan; Lucksy Kottam; Jonathan L Rees; Dair Farrar-Hockley; Naomi Merritt; Sally Hopewell; David Beard; Michael Thomas; Melina Dritsaki; Andrew J Carr
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 6.  Nanotechnology and regenerative therapeutics in plastic surgery: The next frontier.

Authors:  Aaron Tan; Reema Chawla; Natasha G; Sara Mahdibeiraghdar; Rebecca Jeyaraj; Jayakumar Rajadas; Michael R Hamblin; Alexander M Seifalian
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2015-09-06       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Soft, Brown Rupture: Clinical Signs and Symptoms Associated with Ruptured PIP Breast Implants.

Authors:  Yvette Godwin; Robert T Duncan; Christine Feig; Michelle Reintals; Sarah Hill
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-12-05

8.  Evaluation of the biocompatibility of silicone gel implants - histomorphometric study.

Authors:  Diurianne Caroline Campos França; Alvimar Lima de Castro; Ana Maria Pires Soubhia; Sandra Maria Herondina Coelho Ávila de Aguiar; Marcelo Coelho Goiato
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2013

9.  Osteopontin (OPN) is an important protein to mediate improvements in the biocompatibility of C ion-implanted silicone rubber.

Authors:  Shao-liang Wang; Xiao-hua Shi; Zhi Yang; Yi-ming Zhang; Li-ru Shen; Ze-yuan Lei; Zhi-Qing Zhang; Cong Cao; Dong-li Fan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Tissue-Engineered Solutions in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Principles and Practice.

Authors:  Sarah Al-Himdani; Zita M Jessop; Ayesha Al-Sabah; Emman Combellack; Amel Ibrahim; Shareen H Doak; Andrew M Hart; Charles W Archer; Catherine A Thornton; Iain S Whitaker
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2017-02-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.