Download
quarantine topic

 

AJOPS | REVIEW ARTICLE
PUBLISHED: 31-03-2021

AJOPS logo

Diagnosis, investigation and management of breast implant illness:
a narrative review

Daniel WH Wong MD BDS1, Tai K Lam MBBS MS FRACS2

1 

Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Woodville South
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

2 

Flinders Medical Centre
Adelaide
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

OPEN ACCESS
Correspondence
Name:
Daniel WH Wong
Address:
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Woodville South 5011
South Australia
AUSTRALIA
Email:
[email protected]
Phone:
+61 (0)402 559 529
Citation:
Wong DWH, Lam TK. Diagnosis, investigation and management of breast implant illness: a narrative review. Australas J Plast Surg. 2021;4(1):9–21. DOI https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.v4n1.210
Manuscript received: 16 March 2020
Manuscript revised: 29 August 2020
Manuscript accepted: 26 October 2020
Copyright © 2021.
Authors retain their copyright in the article. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0 which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Section:
Aesthetic


Abstract

Introduction: An increasing pool of literature proposes a link between silicone implants and autoimmune-related symptoms known colloquially as breast implant illness (BII). We describe the history of BII, the reported symptoms, risk factors and previously published diagnostic criteria with the aim to aid clinicians in the diagnosis, investigations and management of patients presenting with symptoms that they attribute to their silicone breast implants.

Methods: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE) and PubMed in September 2018. The search terms ‘autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants’, ‘breast implants’ and ‘silicone’ were used alone and in combination.

Results: Thirty-four studies were reviewed, of which there were three case reports, 12 case series, 14 retrospective cohort studies, four case control studies and one prospective cohort study. Within this cohort, 18 studies were found regarding the explantation of implants relating to BII.

Conclusion: Studies have demonstrated no association between silicone breast implants and any known autoimmune diseases, but there exists a pool of literature suggestive of a relatively undefined condition colloquially known as BII. Serological testing and imaging play an important role in the assessment of patients to exclude other pathology, but these tests remain non-diagnostic for BII. Although medical treatment has shown promise, there is no established treatment for patients. The surgical explantation of implants appears to have positive outcomes for patients; however, the exact nature of the surgery required to achieve this remains unclear.

Keywords: plastic surgery, breast implantation, connective tissue, silicones, autoimmune diseases


Introduction

Silicone breast implants have been a powerful tool in both cosmetic and reconstructive surgery since the 1960s. Thus far, silicone implants have been considered safe, with accepted known risks.1,2 However, media and social awareness are now fuelling growing scepticism about the safety of silicone breast implants. Over the past 20 years, there has been an increasing pool of literature proposing a link between silicone implants and autoimmune-related symptoms3 known colloquially as breast implant illness (BII). This association was reported as early as 1964 by Miyoshi and colleagues4 and has various names including human adjuvant disease, silicone implant incompatibility syndrome and, more recently, autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).5

Currently, BII is not a defined disease and has no established diagnostic criteria or widely accepted treatment options. A recent article by Rohrich and colleagues6 reviewed the safety of silicone breast implants, while Magnusson and colleagues have analysed the scientific validity of BII.7 This supplementary review provides clinicians with available and relevant information to form a framework for discussing the evidence behind the diagnosis, investigation and management of patients who present with symptoms of BII.

Methods

We performed a literature search using MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE) and Pubmed in September 2018. The search terms ‘autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants’, ‘breast implants’ and ‘silicone’ were used alone and in combination.

Articles were excluded if they did not specifically focus on the potential relationship between silicone breast implants and symptoms of an undefined autoimmune disorder. Also excluded were articles that focused on well-defined autoimmune or connective tissue diseases, those that focused on silicone in medical devices other than breast implants, those pertaining to breast malignancies and non-English language papers. Further, additional citations were solicited from references in the selected articles.

Results

A total of 110 studies were screened and assessed for eligibility, of which 34 are included in this review. These studies were published between 1987 and 2017. They include three case reports, 12 case series, 14 retrospective cohort studies, four case control studies and one prospective cohort study (Table 1). Eighteen studies were found regarding the explantation of implants relating to ASIA or other defined autoimmune diseases. Of these, there were three case reports, five cases series, eight retrospective cohort studies and two prospective cohort studies (Table 2).

Table 1: Eligible studies published between 1987 and 2018
Author Year Type of study No. of patients Mean age (range)
Endo et al8 1987 Case series 8 45 (35–65)
Bridges et al9 1993 Case control 156 44 (22–72)
Shoaib et al10 1994 Retrospective cohort 100 32 (19–52)
Giltay et al11 1994 Case control 235 43 (19–73)
Vasey et al12 1994 Retrospective cohort 50 44 (30–66)
Freundlich et al13 1994 Case series 50 43 (26–71)
Solomon et al14 1994 Retrospective cohort 176 45 (24–72)
Cuellar et al15 1995 Retrospective cohort 300 44 (25–69)
Wells et al16 1995 Case series 52 45.6
Shoaib et al17 1996 Case series 26 33.5 (21–50)
Kao et al18 1997 Case report 1 56
Thomas et al19 1997 Case series 25 Not specified
Meier et al20 1997 Case report 2 Not specified
Peters et al21 1997 Case series 100 28.9 (13–55)
Melmed et al22 1998 Retrospective cohort 240 26–70
Contant et al23 2000 Retrospective cohort 63 46 (25–71)
Contant et al24 2002 Case series 57 43 (26–58)
Gaubitz et al25 2002 Case series 90 50 (20–70)
De Jong et al26 2002 Case series 42 31–73
Vermeulen et al27 2003 Retrospective cohort 176 49
Englert et al28 2004 Case control 458 Not specified
Kulmala et al29 2004 Retrospective cohort 685 32 (16–65)
Siggelkow et al30 2004 Retrospective cohort 53 51
Spear et al31 2007 Retrospective cohort 940 34 (augmentation patients)
48 (reconstruction patients)
Wolfram et al32 2008 Case control 143 44 (19–73)
Kappel et al33 2012 Prospective cohort 111 49 (for replacement with monoblock hydrogel)
36 (for initial implant with monoblock hydrogel)
Zambacos et al34 2013 Case series 14 N/A  
Cohen Tervaert et al35 2013 Retrospective cohort 32 49 (18–64)
Maijers et al36 2013 Retrospective cohort 80 47 (22–78)
Kappel et al37 2014 Case series 3 50
Colaris et al38 2017 Retrospective cohort 100 33 (14–56)
Pavlov–Dolijanovic et al39 2017 Case series 3 28–55
Nunes et al40 2017 Case report 1 23
Alijotas-Reig et al4 2018 Retrospective cohort 45 N/A
Table 2: Studies regarding the explantation of implants relating to ASIA or other defined autoimmune diseases
Author Year Type of study No. of patients Mean age (range)
Endo et al8 1987 Case series 8 45 (35–65)
Kaiser et al41 1990 Case report 1 42
Shoaib et al10 1994 Retrospective cohort 100 32 (19–52)
Vasey et al12 1994 Retrospective cohort 50 44 (30–66)
Solomon et al14 1994 Retrospective cohort 176 45 (24–72)
Cuellar et al15 1995 Retrospective cohort 300 44 (25–69)
Wallace et al42 1996 Prospective cohort 45 35
Shaoib et al17 1996 Case series 26 33.5 (21–50)
Thomas et al19 1997 Case series 25 Not specified
Meier et al20 1997 Case report 2 Not specified
Peters et al21 1997 Case series 100 28.9 (13–55)
Melmed et al22 1998 Retrospective cohort 240 26–70
Siggelkow et al30 2004 Retrospective cohort 53 51
Jara et al43 2012 Case report 1 25
Kappel et al33 2012 Prospective cohort 111 49 (for replacement with monoblock hydrogel)
36 for initial implant with monoblock hydrogel)
Maijers et al36 2013 Retrospective cohort 80 47 (22–78)
Kappel et al37 2014 Case series 3 50
Colaris et al38 2017 Retrospective cohort 100 33 (14–56)

Discussion

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is the basic material of breast implants and is part of the family of polyorganosiloxanes (silicones).44 Although silicone is considered to be biologically inert, it undergoes oxidation to silica when exposed to reactive oxygen radicals released by activated local macrophages.45–47 Studies have demonstrated a link between silica and silicon exposure with the development of autoimmune conditions via the induction of a type two inflammatory response.35,48

Silicone levels

Studies have shown that silicone levels are significantly higher in the peri-implant capsule in patients with saline-filled breast implants, while levels in adjacent breast tissue are the same compared with control breast tissue. Despite this, saline implants have not been linked with the development of BII.49–51 Comparatively, the levels of silicone in both the peri-implant capsule and adjacent breast tissue are significantly higher in patients with silicone-filled breast implants and have been associated with symptoms of BII.49,50 This observation speculates a possible dose-dependent pathogenesis for the symptoms of BII.

Silicone and autoimmune disease

The link between silicone breast implants and autoimmune disorders has historically been controversial. Following the moratorium on breast implants in 1992, the United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) released its report on the safety of silicone breast implants.52 This report noted that there was no evidence to implicate silicone breast implants with the development of autoimmune disease.52 When the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved silicone-gel breast implants in 2006, it recognised that data on rare events and long-term outcomes were limited. To clarify this, each manufacturer of silicone-gel breast implants is required to conduct a number of post-approval studies to characterise the long-term safety profile of its devices.53 In response, MENTOR® and Allergan produced core studies with a follow-up period of eight and 10 years, respectively.54,55 These studies did not demonstrate an association with autoimmune disease.53

More recently, larger post-approval studies have been conducted to evaluate the incidence of rare adverse events. A study by Singh and colleagues assessed 55,279 patients with a minimum five-year follow-up who had Allergan implants, comparing the incidence of targeted adverse events to patients with saline implants and national norms. This study showed that Allergan Natrelle® (Northshore Corporate Centre, 4/810 Pacific Hwy, Gordon NSW 2072) round silicone implants did not significantly increase the risk of any systemic disease compared with both national norms and saline implants.56 Another study by Coroneos and colleagues assessed both Allergan and MENTOR® (a business of Johnson & Johnson Medical Pty Ltd 1–5 Khartoum Road, Macquarie Park NSW 2113) implants with a total of 99,993 patients, with a follow-up period of two years for Allergan and seven years for MENTOR® implants. They found that women with silicone breast implants had rates of Sjögren’s’ syndrome, scleroderma and rheumatoid arthritis that were greater than double those in the general population. Furthermore, both the Allergan and MENTOR® groups showed a higher incidence of patient-reported rheumatological symptoms in the revision-reconstruction cohort.57 These authors also countered the common criticism of patient-reported data. They suggested that although the accuracy of the findings might be difficult to interpret, the results represent a significant proportion of women who present with symptoms who nevertheless still require clinical evaluation and management.

In the studies we reviewed, there was a wide range in duration of latency periods between exposure and disease. In an analysis of 300 patients, Watad and colleagues58 showed a mean latency period of 31 months (range 1 week to 60 months). In their cohort of 200 patients, Colaris and colleagues38 showed a median latency period of four years (range 1–39 years) and several smaller studies had latency periods ranging from 5 to 15 years.4,55,35 The aforementioned post-approval studies by Allergan and MENTOR® would therefore have captured data pertaining to ASIA; however, the FDA analysis was looking for an association with known autoimmune diseases and not a yet-to-be-defined syndrome such as BII.

The incidence of concomitant autoimmune conditions was assessed in several publications. A retrospective study of 300 patients with silicone breast implants referred to a rheumatology clinic for musculoskeletal complaints found similar incidences of human adjuvant disease and known connective tissue disease (10.6% and 11%, respectively).15 In other studies in which all patients met the criteria for ASIA, the incidence of concomitant autoimmune conditions ranged from 10 per cent to 53 per cent.4,12,13,21,35,38

A meta-analysis by Janowski and colleagues59 showed no association between silicone breast implants and autoimmune or connective tissue disorders, supporting the safety of silicone breast implants. This is in keeping with three prior meta-analyses, which also found no increased risk of connective tissue diseases following silicone breast implantation.60–62

However, in the meta-analysis by Janowsky and colleagues, several smaller studies11,63,64 and a significant study of 10,830 patients by Hennekens and colleagues65 were excluded as the patients’ symptoms were self-reported.59 In their analysis, Janowsky and colleagues found the relative risk of connective tissue, autoimmune or rheumatic disorders to be slightly elevated when the data from Hennekens and colleagues study were included, but when the data were excluded the results were equivocal.59 Janowsky and colleagues expounded on the shortcomings of self-reported data in light of the controversial nature of public awareness and concern over the potential health effects of breast implants, justifying the exclusion of this large study. In short, this meta-analysis failed to establish an association between silicone breast implants and autoimmune or connective tissue disorders.

Although the medical literature has failed to link silicone-gel breast implants with ‘known’ autoimmune or connective tissue disorders, there are numerous studies that examine the link between silicone breast implants and a collective group of symptoms that may be autoimmune in nature and are colloquially known as BII.

Clinical findings

The symptom profile of ASIA has been reported by numerous studies. The most common symptoms experienced include chronic fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, fever and generalised weakness (Table 3).

A common belief is that the symptomatology of ASIA is non-specific and therefore possibly related to any number of conditions or circumstances in the normal population. This generalisation has been difficult to dispel, as only a limited number of controlled studies have assessed the incidence of symptoms in patients with silicone breast implants compared with those without. Giltay and colleagues11 presented an age-matched study of 235 patients with silicone breast implants and 210 patients who had undergone an aesthetic operation without the use of silicone. They found that patients with silicone breast implants had a significantly higher rate of symptoms, especially arthralgia, dry eyes and skin abnormalities. Of note, this study was excluded from the meta-analysis by Janowsky and colleagues due to the use of self-reported outcomes. Englert and colleagues28 presented a study of 458 patients with silicone breast implants and a control group of 687 patients who had undergone plastic surgery without the use of silicone. Although they found a higher rate of a ‘cluster’ of symptoms including night sweats, lethargy, impaired cognition, myalgia, breast pain, reflux and paraesthesia in the ‘exposed’ group, these symptoms were also found in the ‘non-exposed’ group, albeit at a lower frequency.

Table 3: Common symptom profile of ASIA
Shoenfeld et al5 Watad et al58 Colaris et al38
n=100 n=300 n=200
Myalgia >60% 49% 73%
Arthralgia >60% 61% 86%
Chronic fatigue/sleep disturbance >60% 59% 97%
Fever Not reported 34% 58%
Neurological manifestations 30–60% 26% 26%
Cognitive impairment 30–60% 21% 80%
Generalised weakness Not reported 33% Not reported
Sicca symptoms (dry eyes, dry mouth) Not reported 18% 73%
Skin (rash) <30% 16% Not reported

Diagnostic criteria

Despite having a varied presentation and symptomatology, several authors have described diagnostic criteria for ASIA. Myioshi and colleagues were the first to do so for a condition they called human adjuvant disease. In 2011, Shoenfeld and colleagues refined this by introducing major and minor criteria.5 In 2015, Alijotas-Reig further modified this by replacing subjective terms from Shoenfeld’s criteria with objective terms to minimise false-positive diagnoses66 (Table 4).

These diagnostic criteria should guide clinical recognition of common symptom groupings that patients may present with. Rather than a tool to exclude or confirm a diagnosis of ASIA, these criteria should direct counselling and appropriate investigation. In their discussion, Shoenfeld and colleagues aptly described the clinical signs and symptoms as ‘enigmatic’, but ‘nevertheless prominent’.5

Table 4: Published diagnostic criteria for ASIA
Publication Criteria
Miyoshi et al66   Variable latency time ranging from months to years
Foreign body-type granuloma present in injected or implanted area ∓ drainage lymph nodes
Presence of any auto-antibody
Symptoms may resolve after implanted material is removed
Infection of neoplastic causes are excluded
Schoenfeld et al66 Major criteria
1. External stimulus exposure (infection, vaccine, silicone) before clinical signs
2. Appearance of typical clinical manifestations
  Myalgia, myositis or muscle weakness
  Arthralgia and/or arthritis
  Chronic fatigue, sleep disturbance
  Neurological manifestations
3. Cognitive impairment or memory loss
4. Pyrexia or dry mouth
5. Removal of agent induces improvement of symptoms
6. Typical biopsy of involved organs
Minor criteria
1. Auto-antibodies or antibodies directed at the adjuvant
2. Other clinical symptoms (for example, irritable bowel syndrome)
3. Specific HLA (ie, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DBQ1)
4. Evolvement into a defined autoimmune disease
Alijotas-Reig66 Major criteria
Diagnosis could be made if three major or two major and two minor criteria fulfilled 1. Exposure to external stimuli (biomaterials, vaccines, anilines or other organic/inorganic materials) prior to clinical manifestations
2. Minimum latency time of days when referring to vaccines and one month for other suspected adjuvants
3. Clinical involvement
  Local/regional (inflammatory nodules, skin oedema, skin indurations, pseudo-abscesses, lymphadenopathy, panniculitis, morphea, sarcoid-like lesions)
  Systemic (distant inflammatory nodules, arthritis, Sicca or Sjögren’s syndrome, myositis, extended panniculitis, demyelinating neurological involvement)
  Evolvement into autoimmune disease
4. Foreign body-type biopsy of involved area or lymph nodes or histological findings consistent with autoimmune/granulomatous disorders
5. Removal of inciting materials induces improvement
6. Compatible HLA (HLA-B8, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DR3, HLA-DQB1 or haplotype combination)
Minor criteria
1. Recent history of triggering factors preceding the onset of clinical manifestations
2. Large, de non livedo reticularis and/or hand erythema appearing at the onset of clinical manifestations
3. Presence of any auto-antibody and/or hypergammaglobulinaemia and/or increased angiotensin-converting enzyme or increased LDH and/or low complement levels

Biomaterials included paraffin, silicone, silicone medical grade, methacrylate, poly-L-lactic acid, polyacrylamide, poly-alkyl-imide, collagen, hydroxyl-apatite, hyaluronic acid, non-animal stabilised hyaluronic acid, and alginate

Risk factors

The development of autoimmunity is believed to result from complex multifactorial interactions involving both a genetic predisposition and external triggers. To better characterise ASIA and rationalise why some individuals exposed to silicone develop post-exposure autoimmune symptoms, Soriano and colleagues described four groups of patients deemed to be at risk of developing ASIA after vaccination based on their review of the literature.67 These groups were identified. They were patients with:

  1. a prior documented autoimmune reaction to an adjuvant
  2. an established autoimmune condition
  3. a history of allergic conditions/atopic disorders
  4. a genetic predisposition to autoimmune disorders.

From their own review of the literature, Goren and colleagues suggested that these same groups would be at risk of developing ASIA following exposure to silicone.3 The commentary provided by these two papers reflects the current literature surrounding risk factors for post-exposure autoimmune syndromes, but both papers acknowledge the need for larger epidemiological studies to validate these concepts.

In addition to a genetic predisposition, external factors such as smoking and obesity have been linked to the development of autoimmune syndromes.68–70 Having an appreciation of these potential risk factors adds to our understanding and gives depth to our discussion with patients presenting with symptoms of BII (Table 5).

Table 5: Potential risk factors for patients presenting with symptoms of BII
Risk group Example
Prior documented autoimmune reaction to an adjuvant Vaccines, silicone breast implants, cosmetic fillers
Established autoimmune condition Systemic lupus erythematosus, Hashimoto’s or Grave’s disease, Type I diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis
History of allergic or atopic disorders Eczema, hay fever, pollen and dust mite allergy, drug allergy, rubber or latex allergy

Prone to develop autoimmunity

 

 

 

HLA-DR4, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DR53,71 HLA-DQA1*010272
HLA-C73
Active smoking
Obesity

Serological markers

The role of serological markers in the diagnosis and management of connective tissue and autoimmune diseases is well established. Many investigators have hoped to discover unique patterns of markers to diagnose and characterise ASIA. To date, no specific pattern of serological markers has been identified. In their case series of 156 patients with breast implants and rheumatic disease complaints, Bridges and colleagues found that most women had normal results from serological tests. These tests included immunoglobulins, complement, C-reactive protein, rheumatoid factor and autoantibodies.9 The Dutch Working Party on Silicone Breast Implants reported a cohort study of 63 women who underwent mastectomy followed by immediate reconstruction with silicone breast implants. They found no difference in symptoms between antinuclear antibody-positive or -negative patients.23 Despite this, serological investigation is vital in the workup of a patient presenting with symptoms of an autoimmune condition and future research endeavours may yet discover a significant serological marker for BII.

Imaging

Although BII has been commonly reported in the presence of an intact and uncomplicated implant,25 thorough imaging will define the integrity of the implant, delineate the containment of a silicone rupture within a fibrous capsule, highlight silicone lymphadenopathy and identify a mass or peri-prosthetic fluid. If on imaging an implant appears intact and uncomplicated, patients presenting with BII often still request explantation. However, if imaging identifies an abnormality, this will direct further investigation to exclude traumatic, inflammatory or malignant conditions. Ultrasound and CT scanning have a role, but MRI is the investigation of choice for assessing the integrity of the implant. The current recommendations from the FDA are for MRI screening of asymptomatic patients with breast implants at three years post-implantation and every two years thereafter.53 In its recent draft, the FDA has recommended an ultrasound or MRI at five to six years postoperatively, then every two years thereafter.74

Implant integrity

Although it has been proposed that the risk of ASIA is greater and symptoms are more severe in patients with ruptured implants,75 ASIA has been described in patients with intact implants.25 Gaubitz and colleagues explored this further in their MRI study of 90 patients with silicone breast implants. They found that symptoms and signs of an autoimmune response did not differ between those with or without ruptured implants.25

Considering that a patient with silicone implants is exposed to silicone from the shell and silicone bleeding,76–78 the integrity of an implant should not determine the presence and course of an autoimmune response.

Medical therapy

Medical therapy with prednisolone alone and in combination with agents such as hydroxychloroquine, allopurinol, cetirizine and tacrolimus has been used for patients presenting with symptoms of ASIA.4 Alijotas-Reig and colleagues presented a case series of 45 patients with ASIA from biomaterials. Of these patients 42 per cent had silicone breast implants. Medium-high doses of prednisolone (0.5–1mg/kg/day) were typically used, with some patients requiring long-term corticosteroid therapy to manage their symptoms. They found that almost 100 per cent of patients were symptom free within a few months and 70 per cent remained symptom free at two years when treatment was withdrawn. Although promising, within this small sample, 22 per cent (10/45) of patients also had complete surgical removal of the offending biomaterial, with 60 per cent of this group demonstrating an improvement in symptoms.4

In line with a multifactorial model of pathogenesis for a post-exposure autoimmune syndrome, Colaris and colleagues explored the role of vitamin D as an immune regulator in patients with ASIA.79 Based on their literature review and measurement of vitamin D levels in 135 patients with ASIA, they found that vitamin D deficiency was related to the presence of auto-antibodies in patients with ASIA, as well as those with other autoimmune diseases such as autoimmune thyroid disease, connective tissue disorders, inflammatory arthritides and multiple sclerosis. Although speculative in nature, the authors acknowledge the limitations of the study and suggest that more robust trials are required to assess the role of vitamin D supplementation.79

Explantation

The explantation of silicone implants is often patient driven, unless there are clear indications such as an implant rupture. There remains uncertainty in offering explantation, due to the perceived lack of pathology, the lack of evidence for its efficacy and concerns over aesthetic outcomes.

In their literature review, de Boer and colleagues proposed that explantation of a silicone implant improves symptoms by reducing autoimmune and inflammatory processes, while reducing nociceptive signals from the physical presence of an implant.46 They reviewed studies that assessed outcomes following explantation for patients with symptoms from silicone breast implants. From their review, there were 11 case studies, which demonstrated an improvement in symptoms in 12/19 (63%) of patients.46 They were also able to collate 703 patients from 12 case series with a reported improvement in symptoms after explantation in 603/703 (76%) of patients. Overall this represented a 75 per cent rate of improvement in symptoms following explantation. Although promising, it is difficult to interpret, as this overall rate was not reached through statistical methodology and simply represents an average of a collection of different studies. In addition, these studies often did not state whether patients also received medical therapy. Many of these studies relied on self-reported outcomes and suffered from selection bias based on their recruitment strategies. Maijers and colleagues recruited their patients through a national media campaign,36 while Cuellar and colleagues recruited patients referred to a rheumatology clinic.15 A study by Peters and colleagues was based on consecutive cases of patients requesting explantation.21 The data are therefore difficult to interpret, despite appearing to strongly support the role of capsulectomy and explantation.

The way in which the explantation and capsulectomy are performed has not been consistently reported and there is no evidence to support an en-bloc capsulectomy over a total capsulectomy that removes the capsule in components or even explantation without a capsulectomy. However, in line with the theory of an adjuvant inciting an autoimmune response,5 understanding the permeating nature of silicone within a fibrous capsule80 and acknowledging silicone bleed as a real phenomenon,76–78 an en-bloc style capsulectomy and explantation theoretically would provide the most thorough technique to remove any potential local source of silicone while minimising silicone contamination to the surgical field. De Boer and colleagues even suggested that the persistence of symptoms following capsulectomy may reflect the presence of residual silicone perpetuating the production of autoantibodies.79

Most patients presenting to a surgeon seeking explantation surgery would usually have contemplated the potential aesthetic impact. A thorough exploration of a patient’s sense of body image and emotional readiness for surgery should be completed.81 If a patient expresses deep regret or fear of losing their breast implants, these concerns should be explored until it is clear that the patient understands and accepts the aesthetic ramifications of explantation surgery. A discussion of the merits and limitations of immediate or delayed options in restoring form and/or volume to the breasts should also be conducted.

Conclusion

Breast implant illness remains a condition of marked debate. This review serves to outline the literature surrounding BII so that clinicians have the relevant information at hand to discuss with their patients. Patients with possible BII can present in a number of ways with mild to severe and even debilitating symptoms. The uncertain nature of a BII diagnosis has repercussions in establishing satisfactory management pathways for these patients. Regardless of the true nature of BII, clinicians have a responsibility to assess these patients to exclude other pathology and also offer counselling and appropriate management guided by the available literature to date. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to assess and support these patients and surgery is a key component to be considered in their overall management.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article. The article is not based on a previous communication. The authors are not recipients of a research scholarship.

References

  1. Greenland S, Finkle WD. A retrospective cohort study of implanted medical devices and selected chronic diseases in Medicare claims data. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10(4):205–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00037-5
  2. Derby BM, Codner MA. Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data uptake and review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;35(1):113–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000832 PMid:25539301
  3. Goren I, Segal G, Shoenfeld Y. Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant (ASIA) evolution after silicone implants. Who is at risk? Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34(10):1661–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-2931-0 PMid:25877803
  4. Alijotas-Reig J, Esteve-Valverde E, Gil-Aliberas N, Garcia-Gimenez V. Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants-ASIA-related to biomaterials: analysis of 45 cases and comprehensive review of the literature. Immunol Res. 2018;66(1):120–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-017-8980-5 PMid:29199390
  5. Shoenfeld Y, Agmon-Levin N. ASIA: autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. J Autoimmun. 2011;36(1):4–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2010.07.003 PMid:20708902
  6. Rohrich RJ, Kaplan J, Dayan E. Silicone implant illness: science versus myth. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(1):98–109. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005710
  7. Magnusson MR, Cooter RD, Rakhorst H, McGuire P, Adams Jr WP, Deva AK. Breast implant illness: a way forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Suppl 3;143:74s–81s. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005573 PMid:30817559
  8. Endo LP, Edwards NL, Longley S, Corman LC, Panush RS. Silicone and rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1987;17(2):112–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(87)90033-3
  9. Bridges AJ, Conley C, Wang G, Burns DE, Vasey FB. A clinical and immunologic evaluation of women with silicone breast implants and symptoms of rheumatic disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(12):929-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-12-199306150-00003 PMid:8489106
  10. Shoaib BO, Pattern BM, Calkjins DS. Adjuvant breast disease: an evaluation of 100 symptomatic women with breast implants or silicone fluid injections. Keio Med J. 1994;43(2):79–87. https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.43.79 PMid:8089958
  11. Giltay EJ, Bernelot Moens HJ, Riley AH, Tan RG. Silicone breast prostheses and rheumatic symptoms: a retrospective follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1994;53(3):194–96. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.53.3.194 PMid:8154939 PMCid:PMC1005286
  12. Vasey FB, Havice DL, Bocanegra TS, Seleznick MJ, Bridgeford PH, Martinez-Osuna P, Espinoza LR. Clinical findings in symptomatic women with silicone breast implants. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1994 Suppl 1;24(1):22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(94)90106-6
  13. Freundlich B, Altman C, Snadorfi N, Greenberg M, Tomaszewski J. A profile of symptomatic patients with silicone breast implants: a Sjögren's-like syndrome. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1994 Suppl 1;24(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(94)90109-0
  14. Solomon G. A clinical and laboratory profile of symptomatic women with silicone breast implants. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1994 Suppl 1;24(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(94)90107-4
  15. Cuellar ML, Gluck O, Molina JF, Gutierrez S, Garcia C, Espinoza R. Silicone breast implant-associated musculoskeletal manifestations. Clin Rheumatol. 1995;14(6):667–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207934 PMid:8608686
  16. Wells KE, Roberts C, Daniels SM, Kearney RE, Cox CE. Psychological and rheumatic symptoms of women requesting silicone breast implants removal. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34(6):572–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199506000-00002 PMid:7661532
  17. Shoaib BO, Patten BM. Human adjuvant disease: presentation as a multiple sclerosis-like syndrome. South Med J. 1996;89(2):179–88. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199602000-00005 PMid:8578347
  18. Kao CC, Rand RP, Holt CA, Pierce RH, Timmons JH, Wood DE. Internal mammary silicone lymphadenopathy mimicking recurrent breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99(1):225–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199701000-00034 PMid:8982209
  19. Thomas WO 3rd, Harper LL, Wong SW Michalski JP, Harris CN, Moore JT, Rodning CB. Explantation of silicone breast implants. Am Surg. 1997;63(5):421–29. PMid: 9128231
  20. Meier LG, Barthel HR, Seidl C. Development of polyarthritis after insertion of silicone breast implants followed by remission after implant removal in 2 HLA-identical sisters bearing rheumatoid arthritis susceptibility genes. J Rheumatol. 1997;24(9):1838–841. PMid: 9292814
  21. Peters W, Smith D, Fornasier V, Lugowski S, Ibanez D. An outcome analysis of 100 women after explantation of silicone gel breast implants. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;39(1):9–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199707000-00002 PMid:9229086
  22. Melmed EP. A review of explantation in 240 symptomatic women: a description of explantation and capsulectomy with reconstruction using a periareolar technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101(5):1364–373. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199804010-00036 PMid:9529228
  23. Contant CM, Swaak AJ, Wiggers T, Wai RT, van Geel AN. First evaluation study of the Dutch Working Party on Silicone Breast Implants (SBI) and the silicone-related symptom complex (SRSC). Clin Rheumatol. 2000;19:458–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100670070006
  24. Contant CME, Swaak AJG, Obdeijn AIM, van der Holt B, Tjong Joe Wai R, van Geel AN, Eggermont AM. A prospective study on silicone breast implants and the silicone-related symptom complex. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21(3):215–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011221 PMid:12111627
  25. Gaubitz M, Jackisch C, Domschke W, Heindel W, Pfleiderer B. Silicone breast implants: correlation between implant ruptures, magnetic resonance spectroscopically estimated silicone presence in the liver, antibody status and clinical symptoms. Rheumatol (Oxford). 2002;41(2):129–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/41.2.129 PMid:11886959
  26. De Jong WH, Goldhoorn CA, Kallewaard M Re G, van Loveren H, Bijlsma JWJ, Schouten JSAG. Study to determine the presence of antipolymer antibodies in a group of Dutch women with a silicone breast implant. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002;20(2):151–60.
  27. Vermeulen RC, Scholte HR. Rupture of silicone gel breast implants and symptoms of pain and fatigue. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(10):2263-267. PMid: 14528527
  28. Englert H, Joyner E, Thompson M, Garcia H, Chambers P, Horner D, Hunt C, Makaroff J, O’Connor H, Russell N, March L. Augmentation mammoplasty and ‘silicone-osis’. Intern Med J. 2004;34(12):668–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2004.00670.x PMid:15610211
  29. Kulmala I, McLaughlin JK, Pakkenen M, Lassila K, Hölmich LR, Lipworth L, Boice JD Jr, Raitanen J, Luoto R. Local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Finland. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53(5):413–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000131275.62449.c8 PMid:15502454
  30. Siggelkow W, Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Rath W, Faridi A. Analysis of local complications following explantation of silicone breast implants. Breast. 2004;13(2):122–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2003.08.003 PMid:15019692
  31. Spear S, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS, Inamed Silicone Breast Implant US Study Group. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Suppl 1;120(7):8s–16s;discussion 17s–18s. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000286580.93214.pdf PMid:18090808
  32. Wolfram D, Oberreiter B, Mayerl C, Soelder E, Ulmer H, Piza-Katzer H, Wick G, Backovic A. Altered systemic serologic parameters in patients with silicone mammary implants. Immunol Lett. 2008;118(1):96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2008.03.007 PMid:18462807
  33. Kappel RM, Prujin GJM. The monoblock hydrogel breast implant, experiences and ideas. Eur J Plast Surg. 2012;35(3):229–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-011-0591-0 PMid:22389555 PMCid:PMC3276769
  34. Zambacos GJ, Molnar C, Mandrekas AD. Silicone lymphadenopathy after breast augmentation: case reports, review of the literature, and current thoughts. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2013;37(2):278–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-0025-9 PMid:23354761
  35. Cohen Tervaert JW, Kappel RM. Silicone implant incompatibility syndrome (SIIS): a frequent cause of ASIA (Shoenfeld’s syndrome). Immunol Res. 2013;56(2–3):293–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-013-8401-3 PMid:23576058
  36. Maijers MC, de Blok CJ, Niessen FB, van der Veldt AA, Ritt MJ, Winters HA, Kramer MH, Nanayakkara PW. Women with silicone breast implants and unexplained systemic symptoms: a descriptive cohort study. Neth J Med. 2013;71(10):534–40. PMid: 24394743
  37. Kappel RM, Cohen Tervaert JW, Pruijn GJM. Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) due to silicone implant incompatibility syndrome in three sisters. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32(2):256–58. PMid: 24739521
  38. Colaris MFL, de Boer M, van der Hulst RR, Tervaert JWC. Two hundred cases of ASIA syndrome following silicone implants: a comparative study of 30 years and a review of current literature. Immunol Res. 2017;65(1):120–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-016-8821-y PMid:27406737 PMCid:PMC5406475
  39. Pavlov-Dolijanovic S, Vujasinovic Stupari N. Women with silicone breast implants and autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants: description of three patients and a critical review of the literature. Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(8):1405–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3731-4 PMid:28466365
  40. Nunes E, Silva D, Grundler C, Spengler MGMT, Horimoto AMC, Machado MA, Frazão IC, Takita LC. Autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) after silicone breast augmentation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9):e1487. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001487 PMid:29062654 PMCid:PMC5640359
  41. Kaiser W, Biesenbach G, Stuby U, Grafinger P, Zazgornik J. Human adjuvant disease: remission of silicone induced autoimmune disease after explanation of breast augmentation. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990;49(11):937–38. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.49.11.937 PMid:2256743 PMCid:PMC1004268
  42. Wallace DJ, Basbug E, Schwartz E, Clements P, Metzger AL, Furst DE, Klinenberg JR. A comparison of systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma patients with and without silicone breast implants. J Clin Rheumatol. 1996;2(5):257–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124743-199610000-00005 PMid:19078080
  43. Jara LJ, Medina G, Gomez-Banuelos E, Saavedra MA, Vera-Lastra O. Still’s disease, lupus-like syndrome, and silicone breast implants. A case of ASIA (Shoenfeld’s syndrome). Lupus. 2012;21(2):140–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203311430970 PMid:22235044
  44. Soriano A, Butnaru D, Shoenfeld Y. Long-term inflammatory conditions following silicone exposure: the expanding spectrum of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32(2):151–54.
  45. Narins RS, Beer K. Liquid injectable silicone: a review of its history, immunology, technical considerations, complications, and potential. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Suppl 3;118:77s–84s. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000234919.25096.67 PMid:16936547
  46. 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(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-016-8813-y PMid:27412295 PMCid:PMC5406477
  47. Colafrancesco S, Agmon-Levin N, Perricone C, Shoenfeld Y. Unraveling the soul of autoimmune diseases: pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment adding dowels to the puzzle. Immunol Res. 2013;56(2–3):200–05. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-013-8429-4 PMid:23733136
  48. Rocha MC, Santos LMB, Bagatin E, Tervaert JWC, Damoiseaux JGMC, Lido AV, Longhini AL, Torello CO, Queiroz MLS. Genetic polymorphisms and surface expression of CTLA-4 and PD-1 on T cells of silica-exposed workers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2012;215(6):562–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.10.010 PMid:22153879
  49. Schnur PL, Weinzweig J, Harris JB, Moyer TP, Petty PM, Nixon D, McConnell JP. Silicon analysis of breast and periprosthetic capsular tissue from patients with saline or silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(5):798–803. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199610000-00007 PMid:8823017
  50. Weinzweig J, Schnur PL, McConnell JP, Harris JB, Petty PM, Moyer TP, Nixon D. Silicon analysis of breast and capsular tissue from patients with saline or silicone gel breast implants: II. Correlation with connective-tissue disease. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101(7):1836–841. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199806000-00009 PMid:9623824
  51. Peters W, Smith D, Lugowski S, McHugh A, Keresteci A, Baines C. Analysis of silicon levels in capsules of gel and saline breast implants and of penile prostheses. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34(6):578–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199506000-00003 PMid:7661533
  52. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Safety of Silicone Breast Implants. Safety of silicone breast implants [PDF on internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press, 1999. [cited 5 May 2019]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44792/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK44792.pdf
  53. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. FDA update on the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants. United States: Food and Drug Administration, 2011. [cited 20 September 2018]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/UCM260090.pdf
  54. Cunningham B. The MENTOR study on contour profile gel silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Suppl 1;120(7):33s–39s. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000286665.91043.bc PMid:18090812
  55. Spear SL, Murphy DK, Allergan Silicone Breast Implant US Core Clinical Study Group. Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(6):1354–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000021 PMid:24867717 PMCid:PMC4819531
  56. Singh N, Picha GJ, Hardas B, Schumacher A, Murphy DK. Five-year safety data for more than 55,000 subjects following breast implantation: comparison of rare adverse events rates with silicone implants versus national norms and saline implant. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):666–79 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003711 PMid:28953716
  57. Coroneos CJ, Selber JC, Offodile AC, Butler CE and Clemens MW. US FDA breast implant postapproval studies: long-term outcomes in 99,993 patients. Ann Surg. 2019;269(1):30–36 https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002990 PMid:30222598
  58. Watad A, Quaresma M, Bragazzi NL, Cervera R, Tervaert JWC, Amital H, Shoenfeld Y. The autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)/Shoenfeld’s syndrome: descriptive analysis of 300 patients from the international ASIA syndrome registry. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(2):483–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3748-9 PMid:28741088
  59. Janowsky EC, Kupper LL, Hulka BS. Meta-analyses of the relation between silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(11):781–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200003163421105 PMid:10717013
  60. Perkins LL, Clark BD, Klein PJ, Cook RR. A meta-analysis of breast implants and connective tissue disease. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;35(6):561–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199512000-00001 PMid:8748335
  61. Wong O. A critical assessment of the relationship between silicone breast implants and connective tissue diseases. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1996;23(1):74–85. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1996.0011 PMid:8628923
  62. Hochberg MC, Perlmutter DL. The association of augmentation mammoplasty with connective tissue disease, including systematic sclerosis (scleroderma): a meta-analysis. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1996;210:411–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85226-8_44 PMid:8565585
  63. 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):1666–670. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199506223322502 PMid:7760867
  64. Wells KE, Cruse CW, Baker JL Jr, Daniels SM, Stern RA, Newman C, Seleznick MJ, Vasey FB, Brozena S, Albers SE. The health status of women following cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;93(5):907–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199404001-00002 PMid:8134482
  65. Hennekens CH, Lee I-M, Cook NR, Hebert PR, Karlson EW, LaMotte F, Manson JE, Buring JE. Self-reported breast implants and connective-tissue diseases in female health professionals: a retrospective cohort study. JAMA. 1996;275(8):616–21. [published correction appears in JAMA 1998;279(3):198] https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.275.8.616 PMid:8594243
  66. Alijotas-Reig J. Human adjuvant-related syndrome or autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants. Where have we come from? Where are we going? A proposal for new diagnostic criteria. Lupus. 2015;24(10):1012–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203315579092 PMid:25813870
  67. Soriano A, Nesher G, Shoenfeld Y. Predicting postvaccination autoimmunity: who might be at risk? Pharmacol Res. 2015;92:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2014.08.002 PMid:25277820
  68. Versini M, Jeandel PY, Rosenthal E, Shoenfeld Y. Obesity in autoimmune diseases: not a passive bystander. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(9):981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2014.07.001 PMid:25092612
  69. Harel-Meir M, Sherer Y, Shoenfeld Y. Tobacco smoking and autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(12):707–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0655 PMid:18037930
  70. Arnson Y, Shoenfeld Y, Amital H. Effects of tobacco smoke on immunity, inflammation and autoimmunity. J Autoimmun. 2010;34(3):j258–j265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2009.12.003 PMid:20042314
  71. Young VL, Nemecek JR, Schwartz BD, Phelan DL, Schorr MW. HLA typing in women with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96(7):1497–519. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199512000-00001
  72. O’Hanlon T, Koneru B, Bayat E, Love L, Targoff I, Malley J, Malley K, Miller F. Environmental Myositis Study Group. Immunogenetic differences between Caucasian women with and those without silicone implants in whom myositis develops. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(11):3646–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.20587 PMid:15529361
  73. Smigoc Schweiger D, Mendez A, Kunilo Jamnik S, Bratanic N, Bratina N, Battelino T, Brecelj J, Vidan-Jeras B. Genetic risk for co-occurrence of type 1 diabetes and celiac disease is modified by HLA-C and killer immunoglobulin-like receptors. Tissue Antigens 2014;84(5):471–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/tan.12450 PMid:25329633
  74. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Breast implants: certain labeling recommendations to improve patient communication. Draft guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. United States: Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 2020. [Draft issued 24 October 2019; cited 3 March 2020]Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/131885/download
  75. Jara LJ, García-Collinot G, Medina G, Cruz-Dominguez MDP, Vera-Lastra O, Carranza-Muleiro RA, Saavedra MA. Severe manifestations of autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome). Immunol Res. 2017;65(1):8–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-016-8811-0 PMid:27412294
  76. Barker DE, Retsky MI, Schultz S. ‘Bleeding’ of silicone from bag-gel breast implants, and its clinical relation to fibrous capsule reaction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;61(6):836–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197861060-00002 PMid:351637
  77. Ginsbach G, Busch LC, Kuhnel W. The nature of collagenous capsules around breast implants. Plast Reconstruc Surg. 1979;64(4):456–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197910000-00004 PMid:482435
  78. Greene WB, Raso DS, Walsh LG, Harley RA, Silver RM. Electron probe microanalysis of silicon and the role of macrophage in proximal (capsule) and distant sites in augmentation mammoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;95(3):513–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199503000-00012 PMid:7870776
  79. Colaris MJL, van der Hulst RR, Tervaert JWC. Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for the development of autoantibodies in patients with ASIA and silicone breast implants: a cohort study and review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(5):981–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3589-6 PMid:28303359 PMCid:PMC5400796
  80. Beekman WH, Feitz R, van Diest PJ, Hage JJ. Migration of silicone through the fibrous capsules of mammary prostheses. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38(5):441–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199705000-00001 PMid:9160123
  81. Walden KJ, Thompson JK, Wells KE. Body image and psychological sequelae of silicone breast explantation: preliminary findings. Plast Reconstr Surg.1997;100(5):1299–306. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199710000-00036 PMid:9326796