3.9 Article

Textured Breast Implants: A Closer Look at the Surface Debris Under the Microscope

Journal

PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 179-183

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2292550317716127

Keywords

breast implant; silicone shedding; surface debris; textured implant

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available