Download PDF
Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33(04): 217-223
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696985
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Evolution of Breast Implants

Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
,
Julian Winocour
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Jacob Unger
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Allen Gabriel
3   Department of Plastic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
,
G. Patrick Maxwell
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 October 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Breast augmentation remains one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures in the United States and worldwide. Throughout the last few decades, the implants used for this procedure have undergone significant advancements, which has allowed surgeons to provide safer and more aesthetically pleasing outcomes. This article discusses the history of breast implants since their invention in 1962. Particular emphasis is given to the evolution of silicone implants with its many challenges, which has resulted in the development of the currently used fourth- and fifth-generation devices. Knowledge of these advances will allow physicians to more critically evaluate their results, and also will encourage them to provide more up-to-date scientific data on these devices to further improve the clinical outcomes of their patients.

Keywords

breast implant - silicone breast implant - evolution - aesthetic surgery - cosmetic surgery
 

  • References

  • 1 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS). Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics. Available at: https://www.surgery.org/media/statistics . Published 2016. Accessed April 22, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Druss R. Changes in body image following augmentation breast surgery. Int J Psychoanal Psychother 1973; 2: 248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Czerny V. Plastic replacement of the breast with a lipoma. Chir Kong Verhandl 1895; 2: 216
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Young VL, Watson ME. Breast implant research: where we have been, where we are, where we need to go. Clin Plast Surg 2001; 28 (03) 451-483 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Longacre JJ. Correction of the hypoplastic breast with special reference to reconstruction of the “nipple type breast” with local dermo-fat pedicle flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) 1954; 14 (06) 431-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Edgerton MT, McClary AR. Augmentation mammaplasty; psychiatric implications and surgical indications; (with special reference to use of the polyvinyl alcohol sponge Ivalon). Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull 1958; 21 (04) 279-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Possible future development of implants and breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2009; 36 (01) 167-172 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Clarkson P. Local mastectomy and augmentation mammaplasty for bilateral paraffinoma of breasts. Nurs Mirror Midwives J 1965; 121 (152) 13-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Regnault P, Baker TJ, Gleason MC. , et al. Clinical trial and evaluation of a proposed new inflatable mammary prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1972; 50 (03) 220-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cronin TD, Brauer RO. Augmentation mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am 1971; 51 (02) 441-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Arion H. Retromammary prosthesis. C R Soc Fr Gynecol 1965 5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rees TD, Guy CL, Coburn RJ. The use of inflatable breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 52 (06) 609-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lavine DM. Saline inflatable prostheses: 14 years' experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1993; 17 (04) 325-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cronin TD, Greenberg RL. Our experiences with the Silastic gel breast prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 46 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Feng LJ, Amini SB. Analysis of risk factors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (04) 955-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Weum S, de Weerd L, Kristiansen B. Form stability of the Style 410 anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant in subglandular breast augmentation evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 409-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Winding O, Christensen L, Thomsen JL, Nielsen M, Breiting V, Brandt B. Silicon in human breast tissue surrounding silicone gel prostheses. A scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray investigation of normal, fibrocystic and peri-prosthetic breast tissue. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1988; 22 (02) 127-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rudolph R, Abraham J, Vecchione T, Guber S, Woodward M. Myofibroblasts and free silicon around breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 62 (02) 185-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Argenta LC. Migration of silicone gel into breast parenchyma following mammary prosthesis rupture. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1983; 7 (04) 253-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Eisenberg HV, Bartels RJ. Rupture of a silicone bag-gel breast implant by closed compression capsulotomy: case report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1977; 59 (06) 849-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huang TT, Blackwell SJ, Lewis SR. Migration of silicone gel after the “squeeze technique” to rupture a contracted breast capsule. Case report. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61 (02) 277-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Thomsen JL, Christensen L, Nielsen M. , et al. Histologic changes and silicone concentrations in human breast tissue surrounding silicone breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (01) 38-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Price Jr JE, Barker DE. Initial clinical experience with “low bleed” breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1983; 7 (04) 255-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Barker DE, Retsky M, Searles SL. New low-bleed implant--Silastic II. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1985; 9 (01) 39-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 van Nunen SA, Gatenby PA, Basten A. Post-mammoplasty connective tissue disease. Arthritis Rheum 1982; 25 (06) 694-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Spiera H. Scleroderma after silicone augmentation mammoplasty. JAMA 1988; 260 (02) 236-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Endo LP, Edwards NL, Longley S, Corman LC, Panush RS. Silicone and rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1987; 17 (02) 112-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kessler DA. The basis of the FDA's decision on breast implants. N Engl J Med 1992; 326 (25) 1713-1715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cohen IK. Impact of the FDA ban on silicone breast implants. J Surg Oncol 1994; 56 (01) 1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lundberg GD. The breast implant controversy. A clash of ethics and law. JAMA 1993; 270 (21) 2608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Handel N, Wellisch D, Silverstein MJ, Jensen JA, Waisman E. Knowledge, concern, and satisfaction among augmentation mammaplasty patients. Ann Plast Surg 1993; 30 (01) 13-20 , discussion 20–22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stombler RE. Breast implants and the FDA: past, present, and future. Plast Surg Nurs 1993; 13 (04) 185-187 , 200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fisher JC. The silicone controversy--when will science prevail?. N Engl J Med 1992; 326 (25) 1696-1698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Guidoin R, Rolland C, Fleury D. , et al. Physical characterization of unimplanted gel filled breast implants. Should old standards be revisited?. ASAIO J 1994; 40 (04) 943-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sitbon E. [Manufacturing of mammary implants: a manufacturing of high technology]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2005; 50 (05) 394-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP. ; Style 410 U.S. Core Clinical Study Group. Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (07) (Suppl. 01) 40S-48S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Capozzi A, Pennisi VR. Clinical experience with polyurethane-covered gel-filled mammary prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 68 (04) 512-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q, Waisman JR, Silverstein MJ. The fate of breast implants: a critical analysis of complications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96 (07) 1521-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Smahel J. Tissue reactions to breast implants coated with polyurethane. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61 (01) 80-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sinclair TM, Kerrigan CL, Buntic R. Biodegradation of the polyurethane foam covering of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 92 (06) 1003-1013 , discussion 1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hester Jr TR, Nahai F, Bostwick J, Cukic J. A 5-year experience with polyurethane-covered mammary prostheses for treatment of capsular contracture, primary augmentation mammoplasty, and breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15 (04) 569-585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Brohim RM, Foresman PA, Hildebrandt PK, Rodeheaver GT. Early tissue reaction to textured breast implant surfaces. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 28 (04) 354-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Abramo AC, De Oliveira VR, Ledo-Silva MC, De Oliveira EL. How texture-inducing contraction vectors affect the fibrous capsule shrinkage around breasts implants?. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34 (05) 555-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Barr S, Hill E, Bayat A. Current implant surface technology: an examination of their nanostructure and their influence on fibroblast alignment and biocompatibility. Eplasty 2009; 9: e22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Stevens WG, Harrington J, Alizadeh K. , et al. Five-year follow-up data from the U.S. clinical trial for Sientra's U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Silimed® brand round and shaped implants with high-strength silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (05) 973-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB. , et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (05) 1115-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hammond DC, Perry LC, Maxwell GP, Fisher J. Morphologic analysis of tissue-expander shape using a biomechanical model. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 92 (02) 255-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S. , et al. Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (07) 2047-2052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Asplund O. Capsular contracture in silicone gel and saline-filled breast implants after reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984; 73 (02) 270-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Burkhardt BR, Dempsey PD, Schnur PL, Tofield JJ. Capsular contracture: a prospective study of the effect of local antibacterial agents. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986; 77 (06) 919-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Gylbert L, Asplund O, Jurell G. Capsular contracture after breast reconstruction with silicone-gel and saline-filled implants: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (03) 373-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 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
  • 53 Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, Harrington JL, d'Incelli RC. Ten-year core study data for Sientra's Food and Drug Administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (4S Sientra Shaped and Round Cohesive Gel Implants): 7S-19S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Stevens WG, Pacella SJ, Gear AJL. , et al. Clinical experience with a fourth-generation textured silicone gel breast implant: a review of 1012 Mentor MemoryGel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 2008; 28 (06) 642-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Caplin DA. Indications for the use of MemoryShape breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: long-term clinical outcomes of shaped versus round silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (3, Suppl): 27S-37S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (06) 709-717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Brody GS. Silicone technology for the plastic surgeon. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15 (04) 517-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Tebbetts JB. Form stability of the style 410 implant: definitions, conjectures, and the rest of the story. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (03) 825-826 , author reply 826–827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 LeVier RR, Harrison MC, Cook RR, Lane TH. What is silicone?. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 92 (01) 163-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Cunningham B. The Mentor study on contour profile gel silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (07) (Suppl. 01) 33S-39S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Cunningham B. The Mentor core study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (07) (Suppl. 01) 19S-29S , discussion 30S–32S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA. Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (03) 768-779 , discussion 780–781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). Global Statistics Worldwide Summary for 2016. 2016 . Available at: https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics/ . Accessed April 22, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Reece GP. , et al. Incidence of autoimmune disease in patients after breast reconstruction with silicone gel implants versus autogenous tissue: a preliminary report. Ann Plast Surg 1993; 31 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Park AJ, Black RJ, Sarhadi NS, Chetty U, Watson AC. Silicone gel-filled breast implants and connective tissue diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101 (02) 261-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Edworthy SM, Martin L, Barr SG, Birdsell DC, Brant RF, Fritzler MJ. A clinical study of the relationship between silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease. J Rheumatol 1998; 25 (02) 254-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Gabriel SE, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT, Beard CM, Woods JE, Melton III LJ. Risk of connective-tissue diseases and other disorders after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1994; 330 (24) 1697-1702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Nyrén O, Yin L, Josefsson S. , et al. Risk of connective tissue disease and related disorders among women with breast implants: a nation-wide retrospective cohort study in Sweden. BMJ 1998; 316 (7129): 417-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Sánchez-Guerrero J, Colditz GA, Karlson EW, Hunter DJ, Speizer FE, Liang MH. Silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases and symptoms. N Engl J Med 1995; 332 (25) 1666-1670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 US Food and Drug Administration. Questions and answers about breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/questions-and-answers-about-breast-implant-associated-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma-bia-alcl?r=def-entry-content . Published 2019. Accessed August 28, 2019
    PubMed
  • 71 Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Pileri SA. , et al. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Blood 2016; 127 (20) 2375-2390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Clemens MW, Horwitz SM. NCCN consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (03) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/t-cell.pdf . Published 2018. Accessed June 8, 2018
    PubMed
  • 74 Establishment Labs. Why Motiva? Innovation for Enhanced Safety. 2018 . Available at: https://motivaimplants.com/why-motiva/innovation-for-enhanced-safety/ . Accessed June 8, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar