Lightweight breast implants: a novel solution for breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty

Jacky Govrin-Yehudain, Haim Dvir, Dina Preise, Orel Govrin-Yehudain, Dael Govreen-Segal, Jacky Govrin-Yehudain, Haim Dvir, Dina Preise, Orel Govrin-Yehudain, Dael Govreen-Segal

Abstract

Breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty have been in practice for decades and are highly prevalent surgeries performed worldwide. While overall patient satisfaction is high, common long-term effects include breast tissue atrophy, accelerated ptosis and inframammary fold breakdown. Increasing evidence attributes these events to the durative loading and compressive forces introduced by the breast implants. Mechanical challenges exceeding the elastic capacity of the breast tissue components, eventually lead to irreversible tissue stretching, directly proportional to the introduced mass. Thus, it is suggested that, contrary to long-standing dogmas, implant weight, rather than its volume, stands at the basis of future tissue compromise and deformation. A novel lightweight implant has been developed to address the drawbacks of traditional breast implants, which demonstrate equivalence between their size and weight. The B-Lite(®) breast implant (G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel) design allows for a reduction in implant weight of up to 30%, while maintaining the size, form, and function of traditional breast implants. The CE-marked device can be effectively implanted using standard of care procedures and has been established safe for human use. Implantation of the B-Lite(®) breast implant is projected to significantly reduce the inherent strains imposed by standard implants, thereby conserving tissue stability and integrity over time. In summary, this novel, lightweight breast implant promises to reduce breast tissue compromise and deformation and subsequent reoperation, further improving patient safety and satisfaction.

© 2015 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Hooke's law and breast tissue responses. The elastic tissue of the breast is symbolized by a spring with constant K. In a static, upright posture, the weight of an implant will displace the breast downwards with a force proportional to the weight of the implant, as described by the following formula: , where F is the force, m is the mass, and g is the standard gravity constant. The tissue's stretch is linear (within the elasticity limits of the tissue), and, therefore, tissue displacement will increase in direct correlation with implant weight. The displacement is described as , where is the displacement, F is the force applied, and K is the spring constant. A heavier implant will result in increased forces and consequential stretch of the breast, as compared with a lighter implant. Therefore, as can be seen in Figure 1, F1 < F2 and . Reprinted with permission from G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Round and anatomical B-Lite® Lightweight Breast Implants (LWBIs). The current B-Lite® catalogue includes over 350 styles and sizes. Reprinted with permission from G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Microsphere-enhanced silicone gel. Integration of silicone gel cross-linked to borosilicate microspheres yields a reinforced gel. The magnified segment shows the high cross-linking density at the surface of the microspheres, resulting in a microsphere-gel adhesion strength exceeding the gel's internal strength of cohesion. Even in the unlikely event of rupture, microspheres will remain bound within the gel and will not disperse. Reprinted with permission from G&G Biotechnology Ltd., Haifa, Israel.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Preclinical test matrix. Extensive testing was performed by independent test laboratories under good laboratory practice conditions. Worst-case conditions were simulated for every test. The B-Lite® LWBI passed all the conducted tests successfully.

References

    1. Cunningham BL, Lokeh A, Gutowski KA. Saline-filled breast implant safety and efficacy: a multicenter retrospective review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;1056:2143-2149.
    1. Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS; Inamed Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Study Group. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7 Suppl 1):8S-16S.
    1. Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank: Statistics 2013. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(1 suppl):1S-22S.
    1. Tweak not tuck. Accessed March 3, 2015.
    1. FDA Update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants. Accessed January 26, 2015.
    1. Bondurant S, Ernster V, Herdman R, eds. Safety of Silicone Breast Implants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999.
    1. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;1173:757-767.
    1. Breast Implant Complications Booklet. Accessed January 26, 2015.
    1. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;326:709-717.
    1. Vegas MR, Martin del Yerro JL. Stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation: understanding implant-soft tissue dynamics in the augmented breast: fundamentals based on materials science. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;375:922-930.
    1. Handel N. Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: a recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(7 Suppl):152S-163S.
    1. Hussain Z, Roberts N, Whitehouse GH, García-Fiñana M, Percy D. Estimation of breast volume and its variation during the menstrual cycle using MRI and stereology. Br J Radiol. 1999;72855:236-245.
    1. Rzymski P, Skórzewska A, Skibińska-Zielińska M, Opala T. Factors influencing breast elasticity measured by the ultrasound Shear Wave elastography – preliminary results. Arch Med Sci. 2011;71:127-133.
    1. Lorenzen J, Sinkus R, Biesterfeldt M, Adam G. Menstrual-cycle dependence of breast parenchyma elasticity: estimation with magnetic resonance elastography of breast tissue during the menstrual cycle. Invest Radiol. 2003;384:236-240.
    1. Gasperoni C, Salgarello M. Rationale of subdermal superficial liposuction related to the anatomy of subcutaneous fat and the superficial fascial system. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1995;191:13-20.
    1. Russo J, Rivera R, Russo IH. Influence of age and parity on the development of the human breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;233:211-218.
    1. Smith M, Kent K. Breast concerns and lifestyles of women. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;454:1129-1139.
    1. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging. 1998;204:260-274.
    1. Scurr JC, White JL, Hedger W. Supported and unsupported breast displacement in three dimensions across treadmill activity levels. J Sports Sci. 2011;291:55-61.
    1. Gefen A, Dilmoney B. Mechanics of the normal woman's breast. Technol Health Care. 2007;154:259-271.
    1. Chadbourne EB, Zhang S, Gordon MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in reduction mammaplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;765:503-510.
    1. Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, Duku E, Furlong W. A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery: health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;1201:13-26.
    1. De Filippo RE, Atala A. Stretch and growth: the molecular and physiologic influences of tissue expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;1097:2450-2462.
    1. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S. High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;1266:2150-2159.
    1. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(7 Suppl):35S-45S.
    1. Bracaglia R, Fortunato AR, Gentileschi S. A simple way to choose the right implant volume in breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005;295:407-408.
    1. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;1256:1781-1787.
    1. Prado AC, Castillo PF. Tape measure used as a simple method for breast implant selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;1116:2114-2116.
    1. Adams WP. The High Five Process: tissue-based planning for breast augmentation. Plast Surg Nurs. 2007;274:197-201.
    1. Tebbetts JB. Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;1186:1453-1457.
    1. Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Hedén P. Benefits and Limitations of Macrotextured Breast Implants and Consensus Recommendations for Optimizing Their Effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;346:876-881.
    1. Hench LL, Best S. Ceramics, glasses, and glass-ceramics. In: Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE, eds. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine, 2nd ed San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004:153-169.
    1. Takizawa Y, Hirasawa F, Noritomi E, Aida M, Tsunoda H, Uesugi S. Oral ingestion of SYLOID to mice and rats and its chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. Acta Med Biol. 1988;36:27-56.
    1. Pennington JA. Silicon in foods and diets. Food Addit Contam. 1991;81:97-118.
    1. Becker LC, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, et al. Safety assessment of borosilicate glasses as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2013;32(5 Suppl):65S-72S.
    1. United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation, World Health Organization: International Programme on Chemical Safety. Accessed January 26, 2015.
    1. Rahaman MN, Day DE, Bal BS, et al. Bioactive glass in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2011;76:2355-2373.
    1. Silver IA, Deas J, Erecinska M. Interactions of bioactive glasses with osteoblasts in vitro: effects of 45S5 Bioglass(R), and 58S and 77S bioactive glasses on metabolism, intracellular ion concentrations and cell viability. Biomater. 2001;22:175-185.
    1. Price RL, Gutwein LG, Kaledin L, et al. Osteoblast function on nanophase alumina materials: Influence of chemistry, phase, and topography. J Biomed Mater Res. 2003;67A:1284-1293.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere