INTRODUCTION: A foreign body reaction due to silicone where it is infiltrated or at the places to which it can migrate is known as siliconoma. The use of silicone in breast augmentation procedures can provoke this reaction at the neck level in cases of leakage from mammary implants. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of patients with increased size neck lymph nodes who had previously undergone plastic surgery of the breast with highly cohesive silicone gel implants. RESULTS: In a 10-year period, we identified 12 cases with silicone-infiltrated neck lymphadenopathies, histologically confirmed by fine needle aspiration. They represented 3.5% of patients attended for neck lymph node study. We removed those detected by physical examination and CT in 5 cases, due to pathological characteristics of the node or a previous malignant history. In 2 of these nodes recurred, and node size also increased in 2 of the other 7 non-operated cases. After implant removal, silicone leakage was observed in only 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Cohesive gel silicone used for mammary implants can generate increased neck lymphadenopathies as a secondary effect due to systemic reactions against the silicone when it migrates in cases of implant failure. Surgical options for involved nodes usually do not offer good long-term results.
INTRODUCTION: A foreign body reaction due to silicone where it is infiltrated or at the places to which it can migrate is known as siliconoma. The use of silicone in breast augmentation procedures can provoke this reaction at the neck level in cases of leakage from mammary implants. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of patients with increased size neck lymph nodes who had previously undergone plastic surgery of the breast with highly cohesive silicone gel implants. RESULTS: In a 10-year period, we identified 12 cases with silicone-infiltrated neck lymphadenopathies, histologically confirmed by fine needle aspiration. They represented 3.5% of patients attended for neck lymph node study. We removed those detected by physical examination and CT in 5 cases, due to pathological characteristics of the node or a previous malignant history. In 2 of these nodes recurred, and node size also increased in 2 of the other 7 non-operated cases. After implant removal, silicone leakage was observed in only 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Cohesive gel silicone used for mammary implants can generate increased neck lymphadenopathies as a secondary effect due to systemic reactions against the silicone when it migrates in cases of implant failure. Surgical options for involved nodes usually do not offer good long-term results.