Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2024; 57(01): 024-030
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1778644
Original Article

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Dmitry Batiukov 
1   Medical Center “Antes Med”, Minsk, Belarus
,
Vladimir Podgaiski
2   Belorussian Medical Academy for Postgraduate Education, Minsk, Belarus
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Biointegration of polyurethane (PU) implants providing their stable position years after surgery ensures predictable results of breast augmentation and reconstruction almost eliminating implant factor as a cause of complications. However, in rare cases PU implants appear to be not connected to the surrounding tissues. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PU implant nonadherence after primary breast augmentations and augmentation mastopexies with dual plane implant position, to analyze possible causes, and to propose preventive measures and treatment possibilities of this complication.

Methods The results of primary aesthetic surgeries in 333 patients with dual plane PU implant placement were analyzed. Patients were evaluated clinically, and pictures and videos taken in different periods after the surgery were compared. Particular attention was given to the changes in implant position and the appearance of asymmetries over time.

Results PU implant nonadherence was found in seven patients. It can be divided into primary and secondary and may be complete or partial. Primary nonadherence was found in two cases (0.6%), and secondary in five (1.5%) cases. Possible influencing factors could have been traumatic surgical technique, seroma, hematoma, or physical trauma. The average follow-up was 33 months (1 month–15 years).

Conclusion Biointegration is mandatory for the long-term predictable results with PU implants. PU implant nonadherence leads to implant malposition and may cause typical complications connected to non-PU implants. Improvements in surgical maneuvers, manufacturing process, and weight reduction of the implant may be beneficial for the stability of the results.

Level of Evidence V

Keywords

polyurethane implants - malposition - biointegration - late seroma - capsular contracture - rotation

Human and Animal Participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


Ethical Approval

The study was conducted according to the guiding principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.


Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.




Publication History

Article published online:
19 January 2024

© 2024. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Fleming D, Handel M, Gutierrez J. Polyurethane foam covered breast implants. In: Peters W, Brandon H, Jerina KL, Wolf C, Young VL. eds. Biomaterials in Plastic Surgery. New York: Elsevier; 2012: 96-120
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Vázquez G, Pellón A. Polyurethane-coated silicone gel breast implants used for 18 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31 (04) 330-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Castel N, Soon-Sutton T, Deptula P, Flaherty A, Parsa FD. Polyurethane-coated breast implants revisited: a 30-year follow-up. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (02) 186-193
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Duxbury PJ, Harvey JR. Systematic review of the effectiveness of polyurethane-coated compared with textured silicone implants in breast surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (04) 452-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks), Scientific Opinion on the safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma, 26 March 2021
  • 6 Batiukov D, Podgaiski V, Ladutko D. Removal of polyurethane implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019; 43 (01) 70-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G. The modern polyurethane-coated implant in breast augmentation: long-term clinical experience. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (10) 1124-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Batiukov D, Podgaiski V, Ladutko D. Types of errors made during breast augmentation with polyurethane implants: a systematic review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (01) 70-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Batiukov D, Podgaiski V, Ladutko D. Polyurethane implants in the era of BIA-ALCL: suggested improvements according to risk factors. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46 (02) 995-998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Eder M, v Waldenfels F, Sichtermann M. et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of breast contour and volume changes following subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty over 6 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (09) 1152-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A. et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (04) 879-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lin F, Hong W, Zeng L, Kong X, Feng W, Luo S. A prospective study of breast morphological changes and the correlative factors after periareolar dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with anatomic implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (06) 1965-1976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, Murphy DK. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (02) 145-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS, Inamed Silicone Breast Implant US. Inamed Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Study Group. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (7, Suppl 1): 8S-16S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chopra K, Gowda AU, Kwon E, Eagan M, Grant Stevens W. Techniques to repair implant malposition after breast augmentation: a review. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (06) 660-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Swanson E. Can we really control the inframammary fold (IMF) in breast augmentation?. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (10) NP313-NP314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Campbell CF, Small KH, Adams Jr WP. The inframammary fold (IMF) fixation suture: proactive control of the IMF in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (05) 619-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stanizzi A, Tartaglione C. Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) for the Correction of Breast Implant Malposition. In: Shiffman M. ed. Breast Reconstruction. Cham: Springer; 2016: 1515-1529
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Hamdi M. Association between breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) risk and polyurethane breast implants: clinical evidence and european perspective. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (Suppl. 01) S49-S54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Govrin-Yehudain J, Dvir H, Preise D, Govrin-Yehudain O, Govreen-Segal D. Lightweight breast implants: a novel solution for breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (08) 965-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar