Clinical Experience with Polyurethane-Covered Gel-Filled Mammary Prostheses

Capozzi, Angelo; Pennisi, Vincent R.

doi:10.1097/00006534-198110000-00006

Cited by 61 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although initially the foam was placed on the implant mainly to maintain its position, clinical use revealed lower rates of capsular contracture. 36,37 These foam-coated implants became popular in the 1980s with reproducible results. 38 However, safety concerns were expressed a few years later, which resulted in voluntary removal of these implants from the U.S. market in 1991.…”

Section: Surfacementioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Breast Implants

Kaoutzanis

Winocour

Unger

et al. 2019

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast augmentation remains one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures in the United States and worldwide. Throughout the last few decades, the implants used for this procedure have undergone significant advancements, which has allowed surgeons to provide safer and more aesthetically pleasing outcomes. This article discusses the history of breast implants since their invention in 1962. Particular emphasis is given to the evolution of silicone implants with its many challenges, which has resulted in the development of the currently used fourth- and fifth-generation devices. Knowledge of these advances will allow physicians to more critically evaluate their results, and also will encourage them to provide more up-to-date scientific data on these devices to further improve the clinical outcomes of their patients.

show abstract

Section: Surfacementioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Breast Implants

Kaoutzanis

Winocour

Unger

et al. 2019

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PU-coated implants became very popular during the 1980s because their coating appeared to markedly reduce capsular contracture (58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69). PU capsular contracture rates of 1% to 2% were common after breast augmentation and 2% to 3% after mastectomy reconstruction.…”

Section: Textured Implants Polyurethane: the Ashley Natural Y Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of breast implants

Peters¹

2002

J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This improved prosthesis was evaluated clinically and first reported by Ashley [5,6]. Shortly thereafter, a lowering of the incidence of capsular contraction was reported when this implant was used for reconstruction following subcutaneous mastectomy [7]. While these early reports were published circa 1970s, 'the current prosthesis is made from the same polyurethane foam, utilizing the same fabrication techniques, thus resulting in the same porous material.…”

Section: Historical 13backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polyurethane-Covered Mammary Prosthesis: A Nine Year Follow-Up Assessment

Szycher¹,

Siciliano²

1991

J Biomater Appl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have examined ten tissue capsules from patients ranging from five months to nine years of mammary implantation. Contrary to published reports of polyurethane foam "fragmentation" or "disappearance" in the capsules evaluated, the polyurethane foam was still present and embedded in the surrounding tissue capsule. The foam was nearly always invisible by gross observation, or manual palpation. Only after enzymatic digestion of the tissue capsule did the foam become clearly visible as continuous sheets. ESCA analyses show that explanted foams are devoid of nitrogen peaks. Only carbon, oxygen and silicone signals are observed. The same foams do show nitrogen peaks (due to urethane linkages) when probed by FTIR. Since ESCA only analyzes the first 40-50 Angstroms of a surface, we believe that a "protective coating" composed of soft segments has formed. Beneath this "coating" the original polyurethane composition is still present as evidenced by FTIR analysis. Three possible explanations are advanced: (1) The surface hydrolysis, which takes place within the soft segment of the polyurethane polymer, results in the formation of oligomer(s). These oligomers, devoid of urethane linkages, appear to protect the polymer from further bioresorption, by significantly retarding the rate of additional surface hydrolysis. (2) Chain cleavage occurs in the soft segment producing a hydrophilic polyester chain end which orients into the interfacial area. These chain ends then produce a skin effect which increases the distance from the surface to the hard segments, or urethane-containing linkages. (3) Macromolecular motion in the soft segment phases of the polymer could be reorienting under the influence of the in vivo environment, thus producing a surface layer or "coating" which is predominantly soft segment in composition. Regardless of which of the three hypotheses proves to be most plausible, we interpret the data as showing that the polyurethane foam cover undergoes very slow bioresorption, even after 9 years of human implantation. The data further suggests that the in vivo surface of the polyurethane foam cover is biocompatible and interfacial interactions with inflammatory cells are downregulated or reduced because of the apparent biocompatibility of the material.

show abstract

Clinical Experience with Polyurethane-Covered Gel-Filled Mammary Prostheses

Cited by 61 publications

References 0 publications

The Evolution of Breast Implants

The Evolution of Breast Implants

The evolution of breast implants

Polyurethane-Covered Mammary Prosthesis: A Nine Year Follow-Up Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About