Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Shedding of Silicone Particles from Inflated Breast Implants

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

An interesting article from 1979!!!

PLEASE POST

Dearest Ilena:

Look what I found today. They knew this 22 years ago!

This letter to the editor, " Shedding of Silicone

Particles from Inflated Breast Implants, " in Plastic &

Reconstructive Surgery, by Dr. A. Vargas, was

published in August 1979. It follows. " Sir: Seven

years ago we placed an inflatable prosthesis in a

small breast. There was never any problem, but

recently we exchanged the prosthesis because the

patient wanted a larger size. On removal, we found

spots like collections of sand on the surface of the

implant; in some ways they resembled the spots made by

fungi on slides stored in a humid place. The fibrous

capsule, though thin, also had areas with the same

characteristics. Another patient had a similar

implantation of another brand* of inflatable

prosthesis 5 years ago; she had had no problems, but

wanted it exchanged for a larger size.

On removal of the prosthesis we found the same kind of

spots on the outer surface of the implant and in some

areas of the fibrous capsule. The pathology findings

on the two fibrous capsules were the same--lamellae of

dense, fibrous tissue forming a capsule, with sticky

particles on the inner surface. There was no

malignancy. The concretions on the prostheses were

examined in the chemistry laboratory at Javeriana

University, and at the National University in Bogot.

The specimens contained inorganic salts, nitrogen

compounds, and an inert substance which, on infra-red

spectroscopy, demonstrated the silicon-carbon bond.

One wonders how many of the hundreds of thousands of

breast implants that have been in place for years

without any symptoms might show similar

findings--perhaps from depolymerization or some other

change?

This is a rhetorical question to which I do not know

the answer. Axel Vargas, M.D. Instituto Saint Michel

Carrera 7a, No. 60-20 BogotĀ·, Columbia [sic]. The two

prostheses were different brands, both well-known,

widely-used, and made in the USA. "

This sounds like something Dr. Blais has been saying

for years, that is, that there were problems with

these devices many years ago...but it was kept hidden

by the manufacturers and unknown to anyone not reading

the learned journals. Thank you for helping us to

expose the truth.

Love as always........

Lea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...