4.6 Article

The surface topography of silicone breast implants mediates the foreign body response in mice, rabbits and humans

Journal

NATURE BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 5, Issue 10, Pages 1115-1130

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41551-021-00739-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Establishment Labs
  2. Gabrielle's Angel Foundation for Cancer Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The surface topography of breast implants influences the immune responses to them, with implants having an average roughness of 4 μm largely suppressing foreign body response and fibrosis.
Silicone is widely used in chronic implants and is generally perceived to be safe. However, textured breast implants have been associated with immune-related complications, including malignancies. Here, by examining for up to one year the foreign body response and capsular fibrosis triggered by miniaturized or full-scale clinically approved breast implants with different surface topography (average roughness, 0-90 mu m) placed in the mammary fat pads of mice or rabbits, respectively, we show that surface topography mediates immune responses to the implants. We also show that the surface surrounding human breast implants collected during revision surgeries also differentially alters the individual's immune responses to the implant. Moreover, miniaturized implants with an average roughness of 4 mu m can largely suppress the foreign body response and fibrosis (but not in T-cell-deficient mice), and that tissue surrounding these implants displayed higher levels of immunosuppressive FOXP3(+) regulatory T cells. Our findings suggest that, amongst the topographies investigated, implants with an average roughness of 4 mu m provoke the least amount of inflammation and foreign body response. The surface topography of breast implants mediates the immune responses to them, and implants with an average roughness of 4 mu m largely suppress foreign body response and fibrosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available