RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0046-1816074
Histopathological Evaluation of Inflammatory Response and Capsular Formation Induced by Smooth, Textured, and Polyurethane Implants in Rats
Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: português | EnglishAutor*innen
Financial Support The authors declare that they did not receive financial support from agencies in the public, private, or nonprofit sectors to conduct the present study. Clinical Trials None.
Abstract
Introduction
Silicone breast prostheses, designed in the 1960s, have undergone several modifications to minimize the inflammatory response and capsular contracture. Biomaterial research enhances the understanding of the interaction between implants and tissues, providing insights into innovation, repair, regeneration, and capsular contracture.
Objective
To evaluate the biological response to smooth, textured, and polyurethane-coated implants, to identify associated complications, and to compare postoperative capsular formation in animals receiving these implants.
Materials and Methods
Ten female Wistar rats, approximately 3 months old and weighing from 200 to 250 grams, were divided into 2 groups. Each rat received three implants, one of each type. A pathologist blinded to the origin of the samples performed the histopathological analysis. There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in acute inflammation between the implants. For chronic inflammation, textured and polyurethane implants differed significantly (p < 0.05) from smooth ones. Foreign body reactions were more common in polyurethane implants compared with smooth and textured implants (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference regarding granulation tissue and fibrosis (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
Compared with smooth and textured implants, polyurethane-coated implants increased the occurrence of foreign body reactions, led to more intense chronic inflammation, and resulted in a greater amount of granulation tissue.
Keywords
biocompatible materials - breast implantation - clinical trials as topic - implant capsular contracture - inflammationData Availability
Data will be available upon request to the corresponding author.
Authors' Contributions
CES: conceptualization, study conception and design, investigation, methodology, performance of surgeries and/or experiments, writing – original draft preparation, writing – review & editing; DLP: project management, supervision; HAG: Supervision; LC: writing – original draft preparation, writing – review & editing.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 21. März 2025
Angenommen: 26. August 2025
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. Februar 2026
© 2026. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua Rego Freitas, 175, loja 1, República, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01220-010, Brazil
Caio Engelbrecht de Souza, Décio Luís Portella, Hamilton Aleardo Gonella, Luciana Canabarro. Avaliação histopatológica da resposta inflamatória e formação capsular com implantes lisos, texturizados e de poliuretano em ratos. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (RBCP) – Brazilian Journal of Plastic Surgery 2026; 41: s00461816074.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0046-1816074
-
Referências
- 1 Monteiro Ll, Mangiavacchi W, Machado DG. A evolução das próteses mamárias e os métodos de incisão utilizados em procedimentos de mamoplastia de aumento. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2022; 37 (01) 125-131
- 2 Bozola AR. Passado, presente e futuro utilizando implantes mamários de silicone no Brasil, um relato de 45 anos. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2020; 35: 505-513
- 3 Oliveira KCD, Pereira RMR, Salgado IV, Baptista EVDP, Arantes GC, Luna IC. Opções a capsulotomia e capsulectomia no tratamento da contratura capsular: existem alternativas medicamentosas ao tratamento cirúrgico? Revisão de literatura. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2015; 30 (01) 123-128
- 4 Sperli A, Bersou Junior A, Freitas JOG, Michalany N. Complicações com próteses mamárias. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2000; 15 (03) 33-46
- 5 Valencia-Lazcano AA, Román-Doval R, De La Cruz-Burelo E, Millán-Casarrubias EJ, Rodríguez-Ortega A. Enhancing surface properties of breast implants by using electrospun silk fibroin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2018; 106 (05) 1655-1661
- 6 Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Aster JC. organizadores. Robbins & Cotran Patologia – bases patológicas das doenças. 8ª ed.. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; 2004
- 7 Lee Y, Song SE, Yoon ES, Bae JW, Jung SP. Extensive silicone lymphadenopathy after breast implant insertion mimicking malignant lymphadenopathy. Ann Surg Treat Res 2017; 93 (06) 331-335
- 8 Fagundes DJ, Taha MO. Modelo animal de doença: critérios de escolha e espécies de animais de uso corrente. Acta Cir Bras 2004; 19 (01) 59-65
- 9 Nichter LS, Hardesty RA, Anigian GM. IDEAL IMPLANT Structured Breast Implants: Core Study Results at 6 Years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (01) 66-75
- 10 França DCC, Castro AL, Soubhia AMP, Rosa E, Aguiar SMHCA. Avaliação da biocompatibilidade de implantes de silicone gel em subcutâneo de ratos – estudo histomorfométrico. Rev Fac Odontol (Univ Passo Fundo) 2011; 16 (01) 69-74
- 11 Daniel MJB, Daniel LAGB, Daniel VAGB, Graça Neto L. Aumento do volume do implante mamário por passagem de material orgânico para seu interior. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2023; 38 (01) e0185
- 12 Miró AL. Polyurethane-coated silicone breast implants: evaluation of 14 years experience. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2009; 24: 296-303