Leland H Webb1, Victoria L Aime1, Annie Do2, Kenneth Mossman3, Raman C Mahabir1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 2. Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA. 3. John M. Cowley Center for High Resolution Electron Microscopy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Texturing of breast implants is done to decrease the risk of associated complications. Each manufacturer utilizes unique and at times proprietary techniques to texture the surface of their implants. Little is known about the integrity of this surface structure texturing or the propensity for the surfaces to shed particulate matter. This study aimed to determine the extent of surface particulate shedding from 3 textured implants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are manufactured by Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra. METHODS: Control images of each of the 3 textured breast implants were obtained with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A liquid adhesive, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer was then applied to the external shell of the implants, allowed to cool, and peeled from the surface. Images of the EVA copolymer were taken with SEM to qualitatively analyze displacement of surface particulate debris. Scanning electron microscopy imaging of the implants was repeated for qualitative comparisons with the control images. RESULTS: The peeled copolymer of the 3 implants exhibited surface shedding. Comparison of the 3 breast implants showed the shedding to be greatest for the Allergan implant. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the dynamic surface material properties of the 3 FDA-approved breast implants. Shedding of particulate matter from the implant surfaces can be precipitated by moderate adhesion. Our qualitative examination of SEM findings showed more debris shed from the Allergan breast implants than from the Mentor or Sientra implants.
BACKGROUND: Texturing of breast implants is done to decrease the risk of associated complications. Each manufacturer utilizes unique and at times proprietary techniques to texture the surface of their implants. Little is known about the integrity of this surface structure texturing or the propensity for the surfaces to shed particulate matter. This study aimed to determine the extent of surface particulate shedding from 3 textured implants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are manufactured by Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra. METHODS: Control images of each of the 3 textured breast implants were obtained with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A liquid adhesive, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer was then applied to the external shell of the implants, allowed to cool, and peeled from the surface. Images of the EVA copolymer were taken with SEM to qualitatively analyze displacement of surface particulate debris. Scanning electron microscopy imaging of the implants was repeated for qualitative comparisons with the control images. RESULTS: The peeled copolymer of the 3 implants exhibited surface shedding. Comparison of the 3 breast implants showed the shedding to be greatest for the Allergan implant. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the dynamic surface material properties of the 3 FDA-approved breast implants. Shedding of particulate matter from the implant surfaces can be precipitated by moderate adhesion. Our qualitative examination of SEM findings showed more debris shed from the Allergan breast implants than from the Mentor or Sientra implants.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast implant; silicone shedding; surface debris; textured implant
Authors: A M Danino; P Basmacioglu; S Saito; F Rocher; C Blanchet-Bardon; M Revol; J M Servant Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Tessa L St Cyr; Barbara A Pockaj; Donald W Northfelt; Fiona E Craig; Mark W Clemens; Raman C Mahabir Journal: Plast Surg (Oakv) Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 0.947
Authors: Berry Fairchild; Warren Ellsworth; Jesse C Selber; David P Bogue; Dmitry Zavlin; Stephanie Nemir; Cristina M Checka; Mark W Clemens Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Anand K Deva; Suzanne D Turner; Marshall E Kadin; Mark R Magnusson; H Miles Prince; Roberto N Miranda; Giorgio G Inghirami; William P Adams Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sang Won Lee; Erick L Johnson; J Alex Chediak; Hainsworth Shin; Yi Wang; K Scott Phillips; Dacheng Ren Journal: ACS Appl Bio Mater Date: 2022-07-11