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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960) 2003-07, Vol.138 (7), p.801-806
Hauptverfasser: Hölmich, Lisbet R, Friis, Søren, Fryzek, Jon P, Vejborg, Ilse M, Conrad, Carsten, Sletting, Susanne, Kjøller, Kim, McLaughlin, Joseph K, Olsen, Jørgen H
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--&gt;</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&amp;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--&gt;</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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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--&gt;</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