Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture
HYPOTHESIS The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1999, 271...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960) 2003-07, Vol.138 (7), p.801-806 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 806 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 801 |
container_title | Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960) |
container_volume | 138 |
creator | Hölmich, Lisbet R Friis, Søren Fryzek, Jon P Vejborg, Ilse M Conrad, Carsten Sletting, Susanne Kjøller, Kim McLaughlin, Joseph K Olsen, Jørgen H |
description | HYPOTHESIS The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1999, 271 women who had received breast implants at least 3 years before, and who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women with cosmetic breast implants, underwent a baseline MRI. A second MRI was performed in 2001; 317 silicone implants (in 186 women) that were intact at the baseline MRI (n = 280) or were intact at baseline but removed before the second MRI (n = 37) were included in the rupture incidence analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Implants were diagnosed with definite or possible rupture. Crude and implant age–adjusted incidence rates were calculated, and implant survival was estimated based on the observed rupture rates. RESULTS We found 33 definite ruptures (10%) and 23 possible ruptures (7%) during the 2-year period. The overall rupture incidence rate for definite ruptures was 5.3 ruptures/100 implants per year (95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0). The rupture rate increased significantly with increasing implant age. Double-lumen implants were associated with substantially lower rupture risk than single-lumen implants. For modern implants intact 3 years after implantation, we estimated rupture-free survival of 98% at 5 years and 83% to 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS The risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation.Arch Surg. 2003;138:801-806--> |
doi_str_mv | 10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73414154</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>395179</ama_id><sourcerecordid>382942821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a374t-ed2cc71d076c51d13574db3aa4c14248f4655b721bc4a3a5b7152523003d1e763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEtLxDAQx4Mo7rr6AfQgRdCTrZk8mvSoi4-FBcHHOaRpql36WJP24Lc3y1YXPM3A_Gbmzw-hM8AJYAw32plPP7iPBKhMRCIx7KEpcCpjmjK2j6YYYxYHEk_Qkfer0BGZkUM0CTXFIuVTdL1oTVXY1tioK6PXqq5M19rozlnt-2jRrGvd9tHLsO4HZ4_RQalrb0_GOkPvD_dv86d4-fy4mN8uY00F62NbEGMEFOGD4VAA5YIVOdWaGWCEyZKlnOeCQG6Ypjq0wAknFGNagBUpnaGr7d21674G63vVVN7YOmSx3eCVoAwYcBbAi3_gqhtcG7IpQglnUkgZILKFjOu8d7ZUa1c12n0rwGojUv2KVEGkEiqIDEvn4-Uhb2yxWxnNBeByBLQ3ui6dDiL9jmMZh0xsIp5uOd3ovykNQ5HRH27Pgwo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>232548788</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hölmich, Lisbet R ; Friis, Søren ; Fryzek, Jon P ; Vejborg, Ilse M ; Conrad, Carsten ; Sletting, Susanne ; Kjøller, Kim ; McLaughlin, Joseph K ; Olsen, Jørgen H</creator><creatorcontrib>Hölmich, Lisbet R ; Friis, Søren ; Fryzek, Jon P ; Vejborg, Ilse M ; Conrad, Carsten ; Sletting, Susanne ; Kjøller, Kim ; McLaughlin, Joseph K ; Olsen, Jørgen H</creatorcontrib><description>HYPOTHESIS The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1999, 271 women who had received breast implants at least 3 years before, and who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women with cosmetic breast implants, underwent a baseline MRI. A second MRI was performed in 2001; 317 silicone implants (in 186 women) that were intact at the baseline MRI (n = 280) or were intact at baseline but removed before the second MRI (n = 37) were included in the rupture incidence analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Implants were diagnosed with definite or possible rupture. Crude and implant age–adjusted incidence rates were calculated, and implant survival was estimated based on the observed rupture rates. RESULTS We found 33 definite ruptures (10%) and 23 possible ruptures (7%) during the 2-year period. The overall rupture incidence rate for definite ruptures was 5.3 ruptures/100 implants per year (95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0). The rupture rate increased significantly with increasing implant age. Double-lumen implants were associated with substantially lower rupture risk than single-lumen implants. For modern implants intact 3 years after implantation, we estimated rupture-free survival of 98% at 5 years and 83% to 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS The risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation.Arch Surg. 2003;138:801-806--></description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-0010</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2168-6254</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-6262</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12860765</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ARSUAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Implants ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Incidence ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Mammary gland diseases ; Medical sciences ; Prevalence ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prosthesis Failure ; Risk Factors ; Rupture, Spontaneous ; Silicone Gels ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960), 2003-07, Vol.138 (7), p.801-806</ispartof><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Jul 2003</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a374t-ed2cc71d076c51d13574db3aa4c14248f4655b721bc4a3a5b7152523003d1e763</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,314,780,784,3340,27924,27925,76489,76492</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=14951974$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12860765$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hölmich, Lisbet R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friis, Søren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fryzek, Jon P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vejborg, Ilse M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conrad, Carsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sletting, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kjøller, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLaughlin, Joseph K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Jørgen H</creatorcontrib><title>Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture</title><title>Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960)</title><addtitle>Arch Surg</addtitle><description>HYPOTHESIS The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1999, 271 women who had received breast implants at least 3 years before, and who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women with cosmetic breast implants, underwent a baseline MRI. A second MRI was performed in 2001; 317 silicone implants (in 186 women) that were intact at the baseline MRI (n = 280) or were intact at baseline but removed before the second MRI (n = 37) were included in the rupture incidence analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Implants were diagnosed with definite or possible rupture. Crude and implant age–adjusted incidence rates were calculated, and implant survival was estimated based on the observed rupture rates. RESULTS We found 33 definite ruptures (10%) and 23 possible ruptures (7%) during the 2-year period. The overall rupture incidence rate for definite ruptures was 5.3 ruptures/100 implants per year (95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0). The rupture rate increased significantly with increasing implant age. Double-lumen implants were associated with substantially lower rupture risk than single-lumen implants. For modern implants intact 3 years after implantation, we estimated rupture-free survival of 98% at 5 years and 83% to 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS The risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation.Arch Surg. 2003;138:801-806--></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Implants</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Mammary gland diseases</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Rupture, Spontaneous</subject><subject>Silicone Gels</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0004-0010</issn><issn>2168-6254</issn><issn>1538-3644</issn><issn>2168-6262</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEtLxDAQx4Mo7rr6AfQgRdCTrZk8mvSoi4-FBcHHOaRpql36WJP24Lc3y1YXPM3A_Gbmzw-hM8AJYAw32plPP7iPBKhMRCIx7KEpcCpjmjK2j6YYYxYHEk_Qkfer0BGZkUM0CTXFIuVTdL1oTVXY1tioK6PXqq5M19rozlnt-2jRrGvd9tHLsO4HZ4_RQalrb0_GOkPvD_dv86d4-fy4mN8uY00F62NbEGMEFOGD4VAA5YIVOdWaGWCEyZKlnOeCQG6Ypjq0wAknFGNagBUpnaGr7d21674G63vVVN7YOmSx3eCVoAwYcBbAi3_gqhtcG7IpQglnUkgZILKFjOu8d7ZUa1c12n0rwGojUv2KVEGkEiqIDEvn4-Uhb2yxWxnNBeByBLQ3ui6dDiL9jmMZh0xsIp5uOd3ovykNQ5HRH27Pgwo</recordid><startdate>20030701</startdate><enddate>20030701</enddate><creator>Hölmich, Lisbet R</creator><creator>Friis, Søren</creator><creator>Fryzek, Jon P</creator><creator>Vejborg, Ilse M</creator><creator>Conrad, Carsten</creator><creator>Sletting, Susanne</creator><creator>Kjøller, Kim</creator><creator>McLaughlin, Joseph K</creator><creator>Olsen, Jørgen H</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030701</creationdate><title>Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture</title><author>Hölmich, Lisbet R ; Friis, Søren ; Fryzek, Jon P ; Vejborg, Ilse M ; Conrad, Carsten ; Sletting, Susanne ; Kjøller, Kim ; McLaughlin, Joseph K ; Olsen, Jørgen H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a374t-ed2cc71d076c51d13574db3aa4c14248f4655b721bc4a3a5b7152523003d1e763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Implants</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Mammary gland diseases</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Rupture, Spontaneous</topic><topic>Silicone Gels</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hölmich, Lisbet R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friis, Søren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fryzek, Jon P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vejborg, Ilse M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conrad, Carsten</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sletting, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kjøller, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLaughlin, Joseph K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olsen, Jørgen H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hölmich, Lisbet R</au><au>Friis, Søren</au><au>Fryzek, Jon P</au><au>Vejborg, Ilse M</au><au>Conrad, Carsten</au><au>Sletting, Susanne</au><au>Kjøller, Kim</au><au>McLaughlin, Joseph K</au><au>Olsen, Jørgen H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture</atitle><jtitle>Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960)</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Surg</addtitle><date>2003-07-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>138</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>801</spage><epage>806</epage><pages>801-806</pages><issn>0004-0010</issn><issn>2168-6254</issn><eissn>1538-3644</eissn><eissn>2168-6262</eissn><coden>ARSUAX</coden><abstract>HYPOTHESIS The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1999, 271 women who had received breast implants at least 3 years before, and who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women with cosmetic breast implants, underwent a baseline MRI. A second MRI was performed in 2001; 317 silicone implants (in 186 women) that were intact at the baseline MRI (n = 280) or were intact at baseline but removed before the second MRI (n = 37) were included in the rupture incidence analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Implants were diagnosed with definite or possible rupture. Crude and implant age–adjusted incidence rates were calculated, and implant survival was estimated based on the observed rupture rates. RESULTS We found 33 definite ruptures (10%) and 23 possible ruptures (7%) during the 2-year period. The overall rupture incidence rate for definite ruptures was 5.3 ruptures/100 implants per year (95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0). The rupture rate increased significantly with increasing implant age. Double-lumen implants were associated with substantially lower rupture risk than single-lumen implants. For modern implants intact 3 years after implantation, we estimated rupture-free survival of 98% at 5 years and 83% to 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS The risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation.Arch Surg. 2003;138:801-806--></abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>12860765</pmid><doi>10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0004-0010 |
ispartof | Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960), 2003-07, Vol.138 (7), p.801-806 |
issn | 0004-0010 2168-6254 1538-3644 2168-6262 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73414154 |
source | MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Breast Implants Female Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Incidence Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mammary gland diseases Medical sciences Prevalence Proportional Hazards Models Prosthesis Failure Risk Factors Rupture, Spontaneous Silicone Gels Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments Tumors |
title | Incidence of Silicone Breast Implant Rupture |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T14%3A43%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incidence%20of%20Silicone%20Breast%20Implant%20Rupture&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20surgery%20(Chicago.%201960)&rft.au=H%C3%B6lmich,%20Lisbet%20R&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=138&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=801&rft.epage=806&rft.pages=801-806&rft.issn=0004-0010&rft.eissn=1538-3644&rft.coden=ARSUAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E382942821%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=232548788&rft_id=info:pmid/12860765&rft_ama_id=395179&rfr_iscdi=true |