Body Image and Quality of Life after Breast Implant Removal

Abstract

Background Silicone breast implants were introduced into the surgical practice in the 1960s and have been widely used ever since, but with a decreasing percentage in aesthetic surgeries and with an increase in breast explant surgeries. The objective of the present study was to evaluate body image and quality of life before and after breast implant removal.

Materials and Methods The BREAST-Q questionnaire and the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire were applied pre- and postoperatively to 11 patients undergoing breast implant removal.

Results The BREAST-Q, with a score ranging from 0 to 100, revealed that satisfaction with the breasts increased from 52.3 to 64.3, and the mean satisfaction with the outcome was of 85.9. According to the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire, with a score ranging from 1 to 5, satisfaction with the appearance of the breasts increased from 3.0 to 3.8.

Conclusion The study suggests improved body image after breast implant removal, but further data is required to draw relevant conclusions.

Keywords

body image - breast implants - mastodynia - quality of life - surgery - plastic

Introduction

The introduction of silicone breast implants into the surgical practice occurred in the 1960s,[1] [2] and these implants have been widely used ever since.[3] [4] The 2018 census of Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery) indicates that augmentation mastoplasty is the most performed surgery in Brazil, but its percentage has been progressively decreasing over the years.[5] Statistics from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons show an increase in breast implant removals from 2019 to 2020 in the United States.[6]

The most significant complications from silicone breast implants are capsular contracture, implant malposition, breast asymmetry, rupture, pain, and infection.[4] [7] [8] In addition, cases of the association of silicone with systemic symptoms and potentially autoimmune diseases have been described, but with no clear evidence, and this remains a controversial topic.[3] [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Breast implant disease (BID) is an unofficial diagnosis of systemic symptoms starting after implant surgery.[4] [7] [10] More than 100 distinct symptoms have been reported to date, and the most common include chronic fatigue, arthralgia, myalgia, cognitive impairment, dry mouth and eyes, alopecia, and skin lesions.[3] [4] [7] [11] [12] There is a theory that pain perception changes due to a nociceptive stimulus caused by the breast implant and the extensive concern about implant safety, similar to fibromyalgia.[3] [9] Another theory is that BID is a functional somatic syndrome in which systemic symptoms result from a somatization disorder.[4]

Breast implant removal surgery is on the rise due to local and systemic symptoms, concerns about breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), and lifestyle changes.[7] [8] Extensive media coverage on implant safety may contribute to this trend.[10]

Objective

The objective of the present study was to evaluate patients undergoing breast implant removal by comparing their body image and quality of life before and after the surgical procedure.

Materials and Methods

The present prospective study was conducted at Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual (which is part of the health system of Instituto de Assistência Médica ao Servidor Público Estadual, IAMSPE), São Paulo, Brazil, from December 2022 to April 2023. The study evaluated 11 female patients who underwent breast implant removal at the Plastic Surgery outpatient clinic. The evaluation included the application of the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire[13] [14] and the breast reduction module of the BREAST-Q questionnaire[15] [16] before surgery and 60 days after the procedure. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess the results.

The study included patients who wanted to remove their breast implants regardless of age. The reasons for the removal included breast pain, capsular contracture, fear of developing breast cancer, implant rupture or rotation, arthralgia resulting from rheumatoid arthritis with no improvement with drug treatment, and the presence of a solid peri-implant mass ([Table 1]).

Table 1

Patient	Breast pain	Capsular contracture	Other reasons
1	Yes	Yes (Baker III)	Fear of a pathology (cancer)
2	Yes	No	No
3	Yes	No	Local mass
4	Yes	Yes (Baker IV)	Implant rotation
5	Yes	Yes (Baker IV)	No
6	Yes	Yes (Baker III)	Implant rupture
7	Yes	Yes (Baker I)	Systemic symptom (arthralgia)
8	Yes	No	No
9	Yes	No	No
10	Yes	Yes (Baker III)	No
11	Yes	No	No

The surgical technique consisted of breast implant removal with partial or total capsulectomy, depending on the technical ease, followed by mastopexy with fat grafting if the resulting breast volume was small ([Fig. 1]).

Fig. 1 Preoperative and 2-month postoperative photos of one of the studied patients.

Results

We evaluated 11 patients with a mean age of 55 (range: 40–87) years. We converted the answers to the breast reduction module of the BREAST-Q questionnaire to a Rasch scale ranging from 0 to 100, in which the higher the score, the greater the satisfaction and the better the quality of life.[15] The mean score on the “breast satisfaction” module score in the preoperative period was of 52.3 (standard deviation [SD]: ± 18.6), and it increased to 64.3(±31.9) after surgery. The mean score on the “psychosocial well-being” module was of 67.9(±27.3) before and of 67.2 (±27.3) after surgery. The mean score on the “physical well-being” module was of 50.7(±25.0) before surgery, and it decreased to 36.6(±12.6) in the postoperative period ([Table 2]).

Table 2

Modules	Preoperative			Postoperative			p-value
	Mean	Median	Standard deviation	Mean	Median	Standard deviation
Satisfaction with the breasts	52.3	48.0	± 18.6	64.3	61.0	± 31.9	0.3276
Psychosocial well-being	67.9	66.0	± 27.3	67.2	66.0	± 27.3	0.8785
Physical well-being	50.7	51.0	± 25.0	36.6	40.0	± 12.6	0.0251

Other assessments of BREAST-Q items assessments were only performed in the postoperative period. The mean score for satisfaction with the postoperative outcome was 85.9 (±17.1) ([Tables 3] [4]). Regarding satisfaction with the nipple-areola complex, 72.7% of the patients were very satisfied with the alignment and shape, 63.6% were very satisfied with its height in the breasts and its appearance, and 54.5% were very satisfied with its sensitivity ([Table 5]).

Table 3

Satisfaction with the postoperative outcomes	Mean	Median	Standard deviation
	85.9	100.0	± 17.1

Table 4

Satisfaction with the outcomes	Disagree		Partially agree		Totally agree
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Undergoing the surgery was the best decision for me	0	0.0	0	0.0	11	100.0
I would encourage other women in my situation to undergo a surgery like mine	0	0.0	1	9.1	10	90.9
I would undergo it again	0	0.0	0	0.0	11	100.0
In general, the surgery was a positive experience	1	9.1	1	9.1	9	81.8
The surgery changed my life for the better	0	0.0	5	45.5	6	54.5
I do not regret undergoing the surgery	0	0.0	0	0.0	11	100.0
The outcome was exactly as I expected	0	0.0	3	27.3	8	72.7
It happened exactly as I planned	0	0.0	4	36.4	7	63.6

Table 5

Nipple satisfaction	Very unsatisfied		A little unsatisfied		A little satisfied		Very satisfied
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
How high or low are your nipples regarding your breasts?	1	9.1	0	0.0	3	27.3	7	63.6
How are your nipples aligned between them?	1	9.1	0	0.0	2	18.2	8	72.7
How is the shape of your nipples and areolas?	2	18.2	0	0.0	1	9.1	8	72.7
How is the appearance of your nipples and areolas?	1	9.1	1	9.1	2	18.2	7	63.6
How sensitive are your nipples?	1	9.1	2	18.2	2	18.2	6	54.5

In the other questionnaire, the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire (BEQ 55), the score for the answers in each sector ranges from 1 to 5, and, the higher the score, the greater the satisfaction.[13] [14] The mean score for satisfaction with breast appearance was of 3.0(±1.6) in the preoperative period, and of 3.8 (±1.5) in the postoperative period. The mean score regarding satisfaction with breast size went from 3.0(±1.6) to 2.9(±1.7) before and after surgery. The mean score for satisfaction with breast shape went from 2.4(±1.6) to 2.9 (±1.7), and the mean score for atisfaction with breast firmness increased from 2.4(±1.2) to 3.2(±1.7) from the pre- to the postoperative period. The results of the two questionnaires had no statistical relevance ([Table 6]).

Table 6

Modules	Preoperative			Postoperative			p-value
	Mean	Median	Standard deviation	Mean	Median	Standard deviation
Which is your degree of satisfaction with the SIZE of your breasts?	3.0	3.0	± 1.6	2.9	3.0	± 1.7	0.5281
Which is your degree of satisfaction with the SHAPE of your breasts?	2.4	2.5	± 1.6	2.9	3.0	± 1.7	0.7498
Which is your degree of satisfaction with the FIRMNESS of your breasts?	2.4	3.0	± 1.2	3.2	4.0	± 1.7	0.2812
Are you satisfied with the (visual) appearance of your breasts?	3.0	3.0	± 1.6	3.8	4.5	± 1.5	0.3079

Discussion

Breast implant removal in BID cases relies on the theory of symptomatic improvement due to adjuvant withdrawal, reducing autoimmunity and nociceptive stimulus, and increasing psychological factors.[3] [4] [11] In the present study, only one patient had systemic symptoms, that is, arthralgia resulting from rheumatoid arthritis, which progressively improved after surgery.

Before deciding on surgery, patients must receive all the updated scientific information on the subject, to align their expectations with the potential outcomes. Local changes resulting from the expansive implant effect, that is, muscle and breast parenchyma atrophy and increased skin redundancy, require reporting. There is no evidence that the capsule requires complete removal in order for the symptoms to improve, and partial or total capsulectomy may be performed depending on local conditions. In addition, the risk of hematoma and pneumothorax requires assessment.[17] [18] [19] After implant removal, the incisions may be simply closed, or mastopexy techniques may be combined with local flaps and fat grafts.[20]

Few studies have evaluated the quality of life of patients after implant removal. Miranda[21] used the BREAST-Q questionnaire for this purpose and noted an improvement after removal. No studies have used the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire in the context of implant removal.[13] [14]

In the current study, the BREAST-Q showed an increase in the mean score for satisfaction with the breasts after surgery and no change in psychosocial well-being. There was worsening of the physical well-being, probably due to the early postoperative application of the questionnaire, since many patients were still recovering from surgery. The overall satisfaction with surgery was high, and all patients stated that “undergoing surgery was the best decision” and that they “would do it again” ([Table 4]). The Breast Evaluation Questionnaire demonstrated improved satisfaction with breast appearance and improved breast shape and firmness. Both questionnaires showed positive initial outcomes but were limited by the small sample size and short follow-up period to assess the impact on quality of life.

There is a growing discussion about breast implants on social media, often with no scientific basis, with debates on the issues and safety of the procedure.[4] [10] This is a potential cause for the decrease in breast implant procedures and increased removal.[5] Despite this trend, it is critical to highlight that breast implants remain the most widely used technique for breast augmentation, and the prevalence of BID and BIA-ALCL is extremely low.[8] [22]

Conclusion

Although initial data indicate an increase in satisfaction with the breasts after implant removal, we need to assess more patients during longer postoperative periods to draw conclusions on the impact on quality of life with significant outcomes.

Conflito de Interesses

Os autores não têm conflito de interesses a declarar.

Authors' Contributions

RBF: data analysis and/or interpretation, statistical analysis, data collection, conceptualization, study conception and design, project management, methodology, and writing – preparation of the original manuscript; EMM: Data collection, investigation, and writing – preparation of the original manuscript; MMM: data collection and writing – preparation of the original manuscript; WC-J: data analysis and/or interpretation final manuscript approval, project management, writing – manuscript review and editing, sand upervision; AAF: data analysis and/or interpretation, final manuscript approval, study conception and design, writing – preparation of the original manuscript, writing – manuscript review and editing, and supervision; and AWC and JAC: supervision.

• Referências

• 1 Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Augmentation mammaplasty: A new “natural feel” prosthesis. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1964
• 2 Cronin TD, Brauer RO. Augmentation mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am 1971; 51 (02) 441-452
• 3 de Boer M, Colaris M, van der Hulst RRWJ, Cohen Tervaert JW. Is explantation of silicone breast implants useful in patients with complaints?. Immunol Res 2017; 65 (01) 25-36
• 4 Miseré RML, van der Hulst RRWJ. Self-Reported Health Complaints in Women Undergoing Explantation of Breast Implants. Aesthet Surg J 2022; 42 (02) 171-180
• 5 Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (SBCP). Censo 2018: análise comparativa das pesquisas 2014, 2016 e 2018. [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 11]. Available from: http://www2.cirurgiaplastica.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Apresentac%CC%A7a%CC%83o-Censo-2018_V3.pdf
• 6 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 11]. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf
• 7 Wee CE, Younis J, Isbester K. et al. Understanding Breast Implant Illness, Before and After Explantation: A Patient-Reported Outcomes Study. Ann Plast Surg 2020; 85 (S1, Suppl 1) S82-S86
• 8 Maijers MC, de Blok CJ, Niessen FB. et al. Women with silicone breast implants and unexplained systemic symptoms: a descriptive cohort study. Neth J Med 2013; 71 (10) 534-540
• 9 Colaris MJL, de Boer M, van der Hulst RR, Cohen Tervaert JW. Two hundreds cases of ASIA syndrome following silicone implants: a comparative study of 30 years and a review of current literature. Immunol Res 2017; 65 (01) 120-128
• 10 Magnusson MR, Cooter RD, Rakhorst H, McGuire PA, Adams Jr WP, Deva AK. Breast Implant Illness: A Way Forward. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (3S A Review of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma): 74S-81S
• 11 Bird GR, Niessen FB. The effect of explantation on systemic disease symptoms and quality of life in patients with breast implant illness: a prospective cohort study. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 21073
• 12 Lee M, Ponraja G, McLeod K, Chong S. Breast Implant Illness: A Biofilm Hypothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (04) e2755
• 13 Anderson RC, Cunningham B, Tafesse E, Lenderking WR. Validation of the breast evaluation questionnaire for use with breast surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (03) 597-602
• 14 Ferreira LF, Neto MS, Silva Mde A, Resende VCL, Ferreira LM. Tradução para a língua portuguesa, adaptação cultural e validação do Breast Evaluation Questionnaire. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2013; 28 (02) 270-275
• 15 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 345-353
• 16 Sbalchiero JC, Cordanto-Nopoulos FR, Silva CHD, Neto BRC, Derchain S. Tradução do Questionário Breast-Q para a língua portuguesa e sua aplicação em mulheres com câncer de mama. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2013; 28 (04) 549-552 Available from www.rbcp.org.br [Internet]
• 17 Wixtrom R, Glicksman C, Kadin M. et al. Heavy Metals in Breast Implant Capsules and Breast Tissue: Findings from the Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 2. Aesthet Surg J 2022; 42 (09) 1067-1076
• 18 McGuire P, Glicksman C, Magnusson MR, Deva AK. Systemic Symptoms Associated With Breast Implants (SSBI): Current Evidence Shows Benefit of Implant Removal With or Without Capsulectomy. Vol. 43. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. Oxford University Press; 2023: 1057-1060
• 19 McGuire P, Glicksman C, Wixtrom R. Assessing Long-Term Outcomes in Breast Implant Illness: The Missing Link. A Systematic Review. Vol. 151. (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; ). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2023: 886E
• 20 Avashia YJ, Rohrich RJ, Gabriel A, Savetsky IL. Surgical management of the explant patient: An update on options for breast contouring and volume restoration. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (05) 978-985
• 21 Miranda RE. O explante em bloco de prótese mamária de silicone na qualidade de vida e evolução dos sintomas da síndrome ASIA. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2020; 35 (04) 427-431
• 22 Charles-de-Sá L, Gontijo-de-Amorim NF, Albelaez JP, Leal PR. Profile of breast augmentation surgery in Brazil. Rev Bras Cir Plást 2019; 34 (02) 174-186 (RBCP)

Publication History

Received: 03 October 2023

Accepted: 29 September 2024

Article published online:
10 February 2025