Poly Implant Prothèse and Rofil Substandard Breast Implant Explantations from a Large German Single Centre from 2011 to 2014: A Comparative Study

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016 Aug;40(4):507-13. doi: 10.1007/s00266-016-0666-1. Epub 2016 Jun 10.

Abstract

Background: Following a Europe-wide scandal, substandard breast implants containing silicone for industry purposes produced by Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP&Rofil) were explanted due to its potential health risks.

Objective: We investigated whether these implants actually imposed a threat to patients' health.

Methods: In this retrospective single-centre case-control study, we compared patients with breast augmentation receiving implant explantation (01/2011-01/2015). Data were collected retrospectively from the patients' records. Patients were split into two groups: PIP&Rofil and implants of other manufacturers.

Results: A total of 307 patients with 495 breast implants met the inclusion criteria, 64 patients with 115 PIP&Rofil implants and 243 patients with 380 implants of other manufacturers. Comparison of descriptive statistics between the two groups revealed that for a variety of indicators (e.g. patient age, breast cancer, aesthetic vs. reconstructive indication, implant volume, submuscular vs. subglandular implant position) PIP implants differ from non-PIP implant patients. Raw mean comparison showed higher rupture rates for non-PIP implants, 28.42 % (PIP 23.48 %). However, when controlling for implant indwelling time, PIP implants had shown higher rupture rates. Both groups had similar rates of capsular contracture (PIP: 71.30 %, Others: 72.63 %) with different distribution of Baker Scores (Baker 2/3/4: PIP 5/8/13 and non-PIP 3/24/135).

Conclusion: Concerning patient symptoms, we did not find any objective reason to justify implant explantation of PIP&Rofil implants as a solely precautionary measure. As PIP&Rofil implants showed shorter retention periods until rupture and ruptured implants can cause symptoms or health problems, PIP&Rofil implants should be regularly monitored and explanted if there is evidence of rupture.

Level of evidence iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords: Breast implants; Capsular contracture; Clinical findings; Implant rupture; PIP implants; Silicone.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Breast Implantation / adverse effects*
  • Breast Implantation / methods
  • Breast Implants*
  • Breast Neoplasms / etiology
  • Breast Neoplasms / prevention & control
  • Case-Control Studies
  • Device Removal
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Germany
  • Humans
  • Implant Capsular Contracture / diagnostic imaging
  • Implant Capsular Contracture / surgery*
  • Linear Models
  • Middle Aged
  • Multivariate Analysis
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Reoperation / methods
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Rupture, Spontaneous / diagnostic imaging
  • Rupture, Spontaneous / surgery*
  • Silicone Gels / adverse effects*
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Silicone Gels