These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Poly Implant Prothèse and Rofil Substandard Breast Implant Explantations from a Large German Single Centre from 2011 to 2014: A Comparative Study.
    Author: Billner M, Wirthmann A, Reif S, Rieger UM.
    Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2016 Aug; 40(4):507-13. PubMed ID: 27286854.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Following a Europe-wide scandal, substandard breast implants containing silicone for industry purposes produced by Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP&Rofil) were explanted due to its potential health risks. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether these implants actually imposed a threat to patients' health. METHODS: In this retrospective single-centre case-control study, we compared patients with breast augmentation receiving implant explantation (01/2011-01/2015). Data were collected retrospectively from the patients' records. Patients were split into two groups: PIP&Rofil and implants of other manufacturers. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients with 495 breast implants met the inclusion criteria, 64 patients with 115 PIP&Rofil implants and 243 patients with 380 implants of other manufacturers. Comparison of descriptive statistics between the two groups revealed that for a variety of indicators (e.g. patient age, breast cancer, aesthetic vs. reconstructive indication, implant volume, submuscular vs. subglandular implant position) PIP implants differ from non-PIP implant patients. Raw mean comparison showed higher rupture rates for non-PIP implants, 28.42 % (PIP 23.48 %). However, when controlling for implant indwelling time, PIP implants had shown higher rupture rates. Both groups had similar rates of capsular contracture (PIP: 71.30 %, Others: 72.63 %) with different distribution of Baker Scores (Baker 2/3/4: PIP 5/8/13 and non-PIP 3/24/135). CONCLUSION: Concerning patient symptoms, we did not find any objective reason to justify implant explantation of PIP&Rofil implants as a solely precautionary measure. As PIP&Rofil implants showed shorter retention periods until rupture and ruptured implants can cause symptoms or health problems, PIP&Rofil implants should be regularly monitored and explanted if there is evidence of rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]