Search

Background: Despite the lack of hard evidence for causality, some women attribute their systemic complaints to their silicone breast implants. Personality and psychological distress are associated with the development of medically unexplained symptoms. It could be hypothesized that these psychological factors are related to the development of breast implant illness (BII). In a previous study, we found a relationship between personality traits and BII-related complaints in patients with cosmetic breast implants. This association may also exist in patients with implant-based breast reconstruction., Objectives: This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between personality, self-reported health complaints, and health- and breast-related quality of life (QoL) in women with implant-based breast reconstruction., Methods: Women who underwent breast reconstruction between January 2015 and December 2018 in either the Maastricht University Medical Center or Zuyderland Medical Center were invited to participate in this study. Participants were asked to complete a physical complaint score form and the BREAST-Q, SF-36, and EPQ-RSS questionnaires through an online survey. The association between outcomes was analyzed with multivariate linear regression., Results: A total of 118 women completed the questionnaires. Social desirability and extroversion were predominant personality traits. Neuroticism levels were comparable with normative data. Neuroticism correlated significantly with health status and breast-related QoL. Health-related QoL had the strongest correlation with neuroticism (β = -2.93, β = -3.41, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: This study suggests that personality, and neuroticism in particular, may contribute to the development of medically unexplained complaints in women with implant-based reconstruction. The influence of personality on BII needs to be further investigated in large prospective studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: There is a need for a new, less invasive breast reconstruction option for patients who undergo mastectomy in their breast cancer treatment., Objective: To investigate quality of life (QoL) among patients undergoing a new breast reconstruction technique, autologous fat transfer (AFT), compared with that among patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction (IBR)., Design, Setting, and Participants: The BREAST trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted between November 2, 2015, and October 31, 2021, performed in 7 hospitals across the Netherlands. Follow-up was 12 months. Referrals could be obtained from general practitioners and all departments from participating or nonparticipating hospitals. The patients with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy and were seeking breast reconstruction were screened for eligibility (radiotherapy history and physique) by participating plastic surgeons. Patients receiving postmastectomy radiotherapy were excluded., Interventions: Breast reconstruction with AFT plus expansion or 2-phased IBR. Randomization was done in a 1:1 ratio., Main Outcomes and Measures: The statistical analysis was performed per protocol. The predefined primary outcome was QoL at 12 months after final surgery. This was measured by the BREAST-Q questionnaire, a validated breast reconstruction surgery questionnaire. Questions on the BREAST-Q questionnaire are scored from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating greater satisfaction or better QoL (depending on the scale). Secondary outcomes were breast volume and the safety and efficacy of the techniques., Results: A total of 193 female patients (mean [SD] age, 49.2 [10.6] years) 18 years or older who desired breast reconstruction were included, of whom 91 patients in the AFT group (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [10.3] years) and 80 in the IBR group (mean age, 49.1 [11.0] years) received the allocated intervention. In total, 64 women in the AFT group and 68 women in the IBR group completed follow-up. In the IBR group, 18 patients dropped out mainly due to their aversion to implant use while in the AFT group 6 patients ended their treatment prematurely because of the burden (that is, the treatment being too heavy or tiring). The BREAST-Q scores were higher in the AFT group in all 5 domains and significantly higher in 3: satisfaction with breasts (difference, 9.9; P = .002), physical well-being: chest (difference; 7.6; P = .007), and satisfaction with outcome (difference, 7.6; P = .04). Linear mixed-effects regression analysis showed that QoL change over time was dependent on the treatment group in favor of AFT. The mean (SD) breast volume achieved differed between the groups (AFT: 300.3 [111.4] mL; IBR: 384.1 [86.6] mL). No differences in oncological serious adverse events were found., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found higher QoL and an increase in QoL scores over time in the AFT group compared with the IBR group. No evidence was found that AFT was unsafe. This is encouraging news since it provides a third, less invasive reconstruction option for patients with breast cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02339779.

Background: Autologous fat transfer (AFT) seems to be a new minimal invasive method for total breast reconstruction, yet how patients, surgeons, and laymen evaluate cosmesis is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the aesthetic outcome of AFT (intervention group) for total breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, as compared to implant-based reconstruction (IBR) (control group)., Methods: A random and blinded 3D photographic aesthetic outcome study was performed on a selection of 50 patients, scored by three panels: plastic surgeons, breast cancer patients, and laymen. Secondary outcomes included agreement within groups and possible patient characteristics influencing scoring., Results: Breast cancer patients and plastic surgeons did not differ in the aesthetic scores between the treatment groups. In contrast, the laymen group scored AFT patients lower than IBR patients (- 1.04, p < 0.001). Remarkably, mean given scores were low for all groups and overall agreement within groups was poor (ICC < 0.50). Higher scores were given when subjects underwent a bilateral reconstruction and if a mamilla was present., Conclusion: Evaluation of aesthetic outcomes varies greatly. Hence, aesthetic outcome remains a very personal measure and this emphasizes the importance of thorough patient counseling including information on achievable aesthetic results before starting a reconstructive procedure., 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 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: A causal relation between systemic symptoms and breast implants has not been established. Psychological factors, such as personality and psychological distress, are strongly associated with the development of medically unexplained symptoms. It can be hypothesized that psychological factors may be related to the development of breast implant illness (BII)., Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the correlation between self-reported health complaints, health- and breast-related quality of life (QoL), and personality, in women with cosmetic breast implants., Methods: Women who attended the plastic surgery outpatient clinic of Maastricht University Medical Center between October 2020 and October 2021 for reasons related to their implants and women recruited for a BII study at the Center during this period were invited to participate in this study. Only women who underwent cosmetic breast augmentation were eligible. Participants completed a physical complaints score form and the BREAST-Q, SF-36, and EPQ-RSS questionnaires via an online survey., Results: In total, 201 women completed the questionnaires. Extroversion and social desirability were predominant personality traits in women with breast implants, followed by neuroticism. Relatively high levels of neuroticism were found compared with normative data. Neuroticism correlated significantly with health status and breast-related QoL. Physical and mental health-related QoL had the strongest correlations with neuroticism (β = -3.94, β = -4.86, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Personality can play a role in the development of complaints. High levels of neuroticism are seen in cosmetic surgery patients and are negatively correlated with subjective health and patient-reported outcomes in women with breast implants. Therefore, neuroticism may be a factor in the development of BII., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society.)

Background: Some women with breast implants report systemic and cognitive symptoms known as breast implant illness (BII), which are very similar to those of fibromyalgia. Functional MRI (fMRI) has shown altered brain activity in fibromyalgia patients., Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether brain alterations could be observed in BII patients by fMRI., Methods: Women aged 18 to 76 with silicone breast implants for cosmetic reasons were recruited through a Dutch online BII support organization (MKS) and through the Maastricht University Medical Center. Study participants comprised 12 women with BII and 12 women without symptoms. Participants completed questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, medical history, psychosocial complaints (Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire), cognitive failure (Mini-Mental State Examination), and pain intensity and pain-related disability (Chronic Pain Grade Scale). Subsequently, brain images of all participants were obtained by resting-state fMRI and diffusion tensor imaging in a 3-T MRI scanner (Siemens Medical System, Erlangen, Germany)., Results: Eleven BII patients and 12 healthy controls were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups and the mean silicone exposure was 15 years. Patients scored significantly higher than controls on both pain intensity and disability. Patients scored worse on depression, somatization, distress, and anxiety compared with asymptomatic women. Mini-Mental State Examination scores were normal. However, the analyses of both functional connectivity and structural integrity showed no significant differences between the 2 groups., Conclusions: This pilot study showed no evidence of brain alterations in BII patients. However, patients scored significantly worse on psychosocial symptoms than controls. Psychological factors appear to play an important role in BII and should be further investigated., (© 2022 The Aesthetic Society.)

Importance: It is unknown how often breast implant illness (BII) is the indication for revision in women with silicone breast implants., Objective: To examine how often women with silicone breast implants have their implants explanted or replaced because of BII compared with local postoperative complications., Design, Setting, and Participants: A legacy cohort study on breast implant revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and a prospective cohort study on breast implantation and revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (with follow-up until December 31, 2020). Data were obtained from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to August 2022., Exposures: Silicone breast implant., Main Outcomes and Measures: Breast implant revision with the indication BII or local postoperative complications., Results: All 12 882 cosmetic breast implants (6667 women; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.7] years) and 2945 reconstructive breast implants (2139 women, mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.3] years) in the legacy cohort and all 47 564 cosmetic breast implants (24 120 women, mean [SD] age, 32.3 [9.7] years) and 5928 reconstructive breast implants (4688 women, mean [SD] age, 50.9 [11.5] years) in the prospective cohort were included for analysis. In the prospective cohort, 739 cosmetic breast implants (1.6%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.8 (0.9-3.1) years, and 697 reconstructive breast implants (11.8%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.1 (0.5-1.9) years. BII was registered as the reason for revision in 35 cosmetic revisions (4.7%) and 5 reconstructive revisions (0.7%) in the prospective cohort, corresponding to 0.1% of the inserted implants. In the legacy cohort, 536 cosmetic revisions (4.2%) and 80 reconstructive breast implant revisions (2.7%) were performed because of BII., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of women with silicone breast implants, BII was an uncommon indication for revision compared with local complications, both in the short and long term. In contrast to the increasing public interest in BII, these results showed that local complications are a far more common reason for breast implant revision.

Background: Concerns about the safety of silicone breast implants (SBIs) have existed for years, but a causal relation between systemic complaints and SBIs has not been proven. Nevertheless, some women are worried and even request explantation., Objectives: This study aimed to review the explantation procedures performed, focusing on patient-reported symptoms preoperatively, the effect of explantation, and the effect of breast reconstruction on these symptoms., Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who had undergone explantation between 2010 and 2020 at Maastricht University Medical Center. Patients who had undergone tissue expander removal, tissue expander-implant exchange, or direct implant exchange were excluded., Results: More than half of the patients undergoing explantation reported complaints, mostly pain. Some 15% reported systemic complaints they believed were implant related. Breast implant illness (BII) was found to be the fifth most common indication for explantation (11.2%). A history of either allergies or implant rupture resulted in higher odds ratios of having BII (odd ratios, 2.1 and 2.1, respectively). Subjective improvement of BII after explantation was reported by about 60% of patients., Conclusions: A relatively low prevalence of suggested BII exists among women undergoing explantation; 1 in 9 procedures were performed for this reason. Allergy and implant rupture may increase the likelihood of having BII. About 60% of BII patients experienced an improvement in their complaints after implant removal. Autologous breast reconstruction appears a good alternative. Prospective studies into health complaints and quality of life should be performed to confirm the effectiveness of explantation as a therapy for BII., (© 2020 The Aesthetic Society.)

Background: Some of the millions of women with silicone breast implants (SBIs) report a pattern of systemic complaints, known as ASIA syndrome. However, the association between these complaints and breast implants remains uncertain., Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of complaints in women with breast implants and healthy controls, and to compare their health-related quality of life., Methods: Four groups of subjects were requested to fill in a general and a diagnostic questionnaire, and the Short Form 36. Group 1 was recruited from the Dutch foundation for breast implant illness (BII). Two groups were recruited from Dutch hospitals, where they had been augmented or reconstructed with SBIs (group 2) or saline-filled and hydrogel implants (group 3). A control group without breast implants was recruited from friends of subjects from group 2., Results: In total, 238 women completed the questionnaires. ASIA manifestations appeared in the majority of the respondents (72.3%-98.8%), with a latency period of 0 to 35 years. Adjusted for age, smoking, and comorbidities, typical symptoms only occurred significantly more frequently in group 1. The presence of a chronic disease was an independent predictor for ASIA syndrome. The health-related quality of life was lower in women with SBIs than in women without breast implants., Conclusions: The adjusted prevalence of BII manifestations is not significantly higher in women with SBIs than in women without implants. The findings of this study suggest that results on BII are subject to selection bias. Further studies are needed to prove an association between self-reported complaints and SBIs., (© 2020 The Aesthetic Society.)

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a very rare type of T-cell lymphoma that is uniquely caused by a single environmental stimulus. Here, we present a comprehensive genetic analysis of a relatively large series of BIA-ALCL (n = 29), for which genome-wide chromosomal copy number aberrations (CNAs) and mutational profiles for a subset (n = 7) were determined. For comparison, CNAs for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- nodal anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs; n = 24) were obtained. CNAs were detected in 94% of BIA-ALCLs, with losses at chromosome 20q13.13 in 66% of the samples. Loss of 20q13.13 is characteristic of BIA-ALCL compared with other classes of ALCL, such as primary cutaneous ALCL and systemic type ALK+ and ALK- ALCL. Mutational patterns confirm that the interleukin-6-JAK1-STAT3 pathway is deregulated. Although this is commonly observed across various types of T-cell lymphomas, the extent of deregulation is significantly higher in BIA-ALCL, as indicated by phosphorylated STAT3 immunohistochemistry. The characteristic loss of chromosome 20 in BIA-ALCL provides further justification to recognize BIA-ALCL as a separate disease entity. Moreover, CNA analysis may serve as a parameter for future diagnostic assays for women with breast implants to distinguish seroma caused by BIA-ALCL from other causes of seroma accumulation, such as infection or trauma., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Breast implant-related health problems are a subject of fierce debate. Reliable population-based estimates of implant prevalence rates are not available, however, due to a lack of historical registries and incomplete sales data, precluding absolute risk assessments., Objectives: This study aimed to describe the methodology of a novel procedure to determine Dutch breast implant prevalence based on the evaluation of routine chest radiographs., Methods: The validity of the new method was first examined in a separate study. Eight reviewers examined a series of 180 chest radiographs with (n = 60) or without (n = 120) a breast implant confirmed by a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. After a consensus meeting with best-performing expert reviewers, we reviewed 3000 chest radiographs of women aged 20 to 70 years in 2 large regional hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015. To calculate the national breast implant prevalence, regional prevalence variations were corrected utilizing the National Breast Cancer Screening Program., Results: Eight reviewers scored with a median sensitivity of 71.7% (range, 41.7%-85.0%) and a median specificity of 94.6% (range, 73.4%-97.5%). After a consensus meeting and a reevaluation by best-performing expert reviewers, sensitivity was 79.9% and specificity was 99.2%. The estimated national prevalence of breast implants among women between 20 and 70 years was 3.0%, ranging from 1.7% at 21 to 30 years to 3.9% between 51 and 60 years., Conclusions: The novel method in this study was validated with a high sensitivity and specificity, resulting in accurate prevalence estimates and providing the opportunity to conduct absolute risk assessment studies on the health consequences of breast implants., (© 2019 The Aesthetic Society. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Breast implants are among the most commonly used medical devices. Since 2008, the number of women with breast implants diagnosed with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in the breast (breast-ALCL) has increased, and several reports have suggested an association between breast implants and risk of breast-ALCL. However, relative and absolute risks of breast-ALCL in women with implants are still unknown, precluding evidence-based counseling about implants., Objective: To determine relative and absolute risks of breast-ALCL in women with breast implants., Design, Setting, and Participants: Through the population-based nationwide Dutch pathology registry we identified all patients diagnosed with primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the breast between 1990 and 2016 and retrieved clinical data, including breast implant status, from the treating physicians. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) of ALCL associated with breast implants in a case-control design, comparing implant prevalence between women with breast-ALCL and women with other types of breast lymphoma. Cumulative risk of breast-ALCL was derived from the age-specific prevalence of breast implants in Dutch women, estimated from an examination of 3000 chest x-rays and time trends from implant sales., Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative and absolute risks of breast-ALCL in women with breast implants., Results: Among 43 patients with breast-ALCL (median age, 59 years), 32 had ipsilateral breast implants, compared with 1 among 146 women with other primary breast lymphomas (OR, 421.8; 95% CI, 52.6-3385.2). Implants among breast-ALCL cases were more often macrotextured (23 macrotextured of 28 total implants of known type, 82%) than expected (49 193 sold macrotextured implants of total sold 109 449 between 2010 and 2015, 45%) based on sales data (P < .001). The estimated prevalence of breast implants in women aged 20 to 70 years was 3.3%. Cumulative risks of breast-ALCL in women with implants were 29 per million at 50 years and 82 per million at 70 years. The number of women with implants needed to cause 1 breast-ALCL case before age 75 years was 6920., Conclusions and Relevance: Breast implants are associated with increased risk of breast-ALCL, but the absolute risk remains small. Our results emphasize the need for increased awareness among the public, medical professionals, and regulatory bodies, promotion of alternative cosmetic procedures, and alertness to signs and symptoms of breast-ALCL in women with implants.

Background: Acellular matrices (AM) might enable a direct single-stage breast reconstruction procedure resulting in an improved efficacy of the reconstruction phase for patients. Safety concerns are an important issue due to a recent study which shows that single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ resulted in more complications versus a two-stage reconstruction. Therefore, the goal of this study is to compare the short- and long-term complications of a single-stage breast reconstruction with the use of two types of AM (Strattice™ and Meso Biomatrix®) versus two-stage breast reconstruction without the use of an AM.Methods: Cohort study with single-stage breast reconstruction with Strattice™ (n = 28) or Meso BioMatrix® (n = 20) or two-stage breast reconstruction without an AM (n = 36) at the Maastricht Academic Hospital, the Netherlands. All complications, in particular major complications with the need for re-admission to the hospital, re-exploration, and implant explantation, were the primary outcome measures. A 1-year follow-up was achieved for all patients.Results: Baseline characteristics of all 52 patients were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher complication rate in the single-stage AM groups with loss of the implant in 40.0% of the breasts from the Meso BioMatrix® group and in 10.7% of the Strattice™ group compared to no implant loss in the control group.Conclusions: This cohort study clearly suggests that the use of a single-stage breast reconstruction is not safe with the use of these AMs. Well-designed prospective studies that guarantee the safety of those matrices should be published before these AMs are used in implant-based surgery.Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence justifying the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is limited. We did a prospective randomised trial to compare the safety of IBBR with an ADM immediately after mastectomy with that of two-stage IBBR.Methods: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled trial in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible women were older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a gene mutation linked with breast cancer who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Randomisation was done electronically, stratified per centre and in blocks of ten to achieve roughly balanced groups. Women were assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. The primary endpoint was quality of life and safety was assessed by the occurrence of adverse outcomes. Analyses were done per protocol with logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. This study is registered at Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR5446.Findings: 142 women were enrolled between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, of whom 59 (91 breasts) in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and 62 (92 breasts) in the two-stage IBBR group were included in analyses. One-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with significantly higher risk per breast of surgical complications (crude odds ratio 3·81, 95% CI 2·67-5·43, p<0·001), reoperation (3·38, 2·10-5·45, p<0·001), and removal of implant, ADM, or both (8·80, 8·24-9·40, p<0·001) than two-stage IBBR. Severe (grade 3) adverse events occurred in 26 (29%) of 91 breasts in the one-stage IBBR with ADM group and in five (5%) of 92 in the two-stage IBBR group. The frequency of mild to moderate adverse events was similar in the two groups.Interpretation: Immediate one-stage IBBR with ADM was associated with adverse events and should be considered very carefully. Understanding of selection of patients, risk factors, and surgical and postsurgical procedures needs to be improved.Funding: Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]