• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 18.07.24

Search results


September 2023
Arnon Blum MD MSc

I read with great interest the important paper describing silicone breast illness as a classic example of autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant (ASIA) [1]. I would like to add from our experience another side effect of breast implant: silicone granulomatous lymphadenopathy [2].

January 2022
Abdulla Watad MD, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi MD PhD, and Yehuda Shoenfeld MD FRCP MaACR
November 2021
Elizaveta Kouniavski MD, Eran Hadad MD, and Lior Heller MD

Background: Breast implant illness (BII) is a rising concern among many patients. Although not fully understood, a connection between silicone breast implants and systemic diseases may be present. This connection may influence the types of breast surgeries performed.

Objectives: To evaluate changing trends in breast surgeries in Israel over time, with regard to implantation, explantation, and implant exchange surgeries.

Methods: In this ecological study, we presented data from four private medical centers in Israel regarding the number of breast implant surgeries performed in the years 2018–2019. Data were collected bi-yearly. The types of surgeries included breast implantation, explantation, and breast implant exchange.

Results: When we summed and compared the yearly data, we saw that the number of implantations in 2018 was 2267 (80.1% of breast implant procedures that year), and 1929 (68.9%) in 2019. The number of implant exchanges in 2018 and 2019 was 482 (17.0%) and 608 (21.7%), respectively. In 2018, 80 (2.8%) explantations were performed and 262 (9.4%) in 2019.

Conclusions: There appears to be a trend in the rise of implant removal surgeries in addition to a decrease in breast implantations. One possible reason may be patient concerns of BII. Another reason may be the increased public interest and discussion about systemic effects of breast implants. More research is needed in this field to achieve better understanding of the phenomenon, the reasons behind it, and the possible solutions and ways of treatment

February 2020
Avi Ohayon MD, Saleh Esa MD and Alexander Rubowitz MD

Background: There are several ways to remove silicone oil (SO) from the vitreous cavity.

Objective: To describe a simple, safe and inexpensive method of 2-port SO removal.

Method: Medical charts of 33 patients who underwent SO removal combined with cataract extraction were retrospectively reviewed, from a cohort of 119 patients who had silicone oil removal. The primary outcome was the rate of re-detachment, secondary outcomes included visual acuity (VA) and intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results: Mean follow-up time was 27.6 months (0.25–147 ± 33.1), and mean tamponade duration prior to SO removal was 16.77 months (4–51.5 ± 14.6). The re-detachment rate was 3% (one patient). Postoperatively, seven patients (20%) had epiretinal membrane (ERM), eight patients had posterior capsule opacification (24%), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) was diagnosed in two patients (6%). Compared to the mean VA (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [LogMAR]) at the preoperative examination, the mean VA (LogMAR) improved significantly at the last visit when including all ranges of VA (n=32, LogMAR 1.52 vs. 1.05 P = 0.0002 [Student's t-test] and P = 0.001 [Wilcoxon test]).

Conclusions: The technique described is fast and simple, keeping the posterior capsule intact in pseudophakic patients, which is advantageous in the event of future re-detachment necessitating SO reinjection. Rates of re-detachment and postoperative ERM and PVR were low. Furthermore, our method does not require the use of a surgical microscope with posterior segment viewing systems, or opening a full disposable vitrectomy set, thus drastically reducing the procedure's cost.

August 2019
Abdulla Watad MD, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi MD PhD MPH, Howard Amital MD MHA and Yehuda Shoenfeld MD FRCP MACR
Valerii G. Zolotykh MD, Anna Y. Kim MD, Yehuda Shoenfeld MD FRCP MACR and Leonid P. Churilov MD PhD
November 2018
Roberta Fenoglio MD, Irene Cecchi MD and Dario Roccatello MD
December 2016
Eyal Klang MD, Michal M. Amitai MD, Stephen Raskin MD, Noa Rozendorn, Nicholas Keddel MD, Jana Pickovsky MD and Miri Sklair-Levy MD

Background: Silicone breast augmentation is a common cosmetic surgery. Previous case reports demonstrated lymphadenopathy in the presence of implant ruptures.

Objectives: To investigate the association between enlarged axillary lymph nodes and silicone implant ruptures as seen on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods: Two groups were derived retrospectively from breast MRI reports in our institution for the period December 2011–May 2014. A search of our hospital records for "silicone" and "lymph node" was performed (group A), and the relationship between the presence of enlarged nodes and ruptures was evaluated. The prevalence of ruptures in the presence of nodes was calculated and the association between MRI imaging features and ruptures evaluated. A search for "silicone" and "implant rupture" was performed (group B) and, as for group A, the relationship between the presence of ruptures and nodes was evaluated and the prevalence of enlarged nodes in the presence of ruptures calculated.

Results: Group A comprised 45 women with enlarged nodes. Intracapsular ruptures were associated with nodes (P = 0.005), while extracapsular ruptures showed a trend of association with nodes (P = 0.08). The prevalence of ruptures in the presence of nodes was 31.4%. Nodes associated with ruptures showed a strong silicone signal (P = 0.008) and absent enhancement (P = 0.005). Group B comprised 73 women with ruptures. Enlarged nodes were associated with both intra- and extracapsular ruptures (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002 respectively). The prevalence of nodes in the presence of ruptures was 22.2%.

Conclusions: Enlarged axillary nodes were associated with ruptures in two groups of patients. This finding can guide clinical decisions when either enlarged nodes or ruptures are encountered in patients with silicone implants. The association between silicone lymphadenopathy and implant rupture raises concerns regarding the role of rupture in silicone-induced systemic disease.

 

April 2016
Paula R. David, Amir Dagan MD, Maartje Colaris MD, Mintsje de Boer MD, Jan W. Cohen Tervaert MD and Yehuda Shoenfeld MD FRCP MaCR
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel