Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sirs,
We read with interest your article regarding the poly implant prostheses (PIP) safety debacle. The final expert review by Sir Bruce Keogh recently published(1) found no evidence of significant risk to human health. However PIP implants are significantly more likely to rupture or to leak silicone (‘gel bleed’) within 5 years of implantation than alternative cohesive silicone gel implants by a factor of 2-6. This is higher than published(2) rupture rates for Allergan (10% at 10 years) or Mentor (14% at 8 years) breast implants.
When the initial media furore came to light, our Breast unit anticipated that many anxious women would need help and guidance, which might not be readily available from their primary cosmetic company. In collaboration with our Primary Care Trust, we set up separate additional clinics for women with concerns regarding their PIP implants. In total we have seen a further 76 women, whose implants have been inserted by several companies, the majority by Harley medical group (38). The mean age of the implants was 6 years. Sixty five women underwent ultrasonography, and 7 underwent an MRI.
Twelve patients (16%) have been found to have a single implant rupture on imaging, 3 women (4%) had bilateral implant rupture and 5 women (7%) had an axillary siliconoma. Two patients had ‘gel bleed’ identifiable on MRI. We have explanted 5 women’s PIP implants, four with evidence of gel bleed, and a further 8 women are undergoing surgery privately. Our results are similar to a product recall study performed by a private health institution (rupture rate 15.9-33.8%) (3).
We hope that similar problems can be avoided in the future by implant manufacturers and the professionals using implants being more open and transparent to their patients about potential problems of cosmetic implants and more rigorous scrutiny by medical health regulatory agencies.
1. Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) Breast Implants: Final Report of the Working Group. Department of Health, NHS Medical Directorate. 18th June 2012.
2. FDA update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-filled Breast Implants. Centre for Devices and Radiological Health U.S. Food and Drug Administration. June 2011. (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures...)
3. Berry MD and Stanek JJ. The PIP mammary prosthesis; A product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2012):65, 697-704.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
12 September 2012
Isabella Dash
General Surgery Specialist Registrar
Cherry Miller, Dorothy Goddard, Jamie McIntosh, Richard J Sutton
Re: Experts call for greater transparency on safety of implants
Dear Sirs,
We read with interest your article regarding the poly implant prostheses (PIP) safety debacle. The final expert review by Sir Bruce Keogh recently published(1) found no evidence of significant risk to human health. However PIP implants are significantly more likely to rupture or to leak silicone (‘gel bleed’) within 5 years of implantation than alternative cohesive silicone gel implants by a factor of 2-6. This is higher than published(2) rupture rates for Allergan (10% at 10 years) or Mentor (14% at 8 years) breast implants.
When the initial media furore came to light, our Breast unit anticipated that many anxious women would need help and guidance, which might not be readily available from their primary cosmetic company. In collaboration with our Primary Care Trust, we set up separate additional clinics for women with concerns regarding their PIP implants. In total we have seen a further 76 women, whose implants have been inserted by several companies, the majority by Harley medical group (38). The mean age of the implants was 6 years. Sixty five women underwent ultrasonography, and 7 underwent an MRI.
Twelve patients (16%) have been found to have a single implant rupture on imaging, 3 women (4%) had bilateral implant rupture and 5 women (7%) had an axillary siliconoma. Two patients had ‘gel bleed’ identifiable on MRI. We have explanted 5 women’s PIP implants, four with evidence of gel bleed, and a further 8 women are undergoing surgery privately. Our results are similar to a product recall study performed by a private health institution (rupture rate 15.9-33.8%) (3).
We hope that similar problems can be avoided in the future by implant manufacturers and the professionals using implants being more open and transparent to their patients about potential problems of cosmetic implants and more rigorous scrutiny by medical health regulatory agencies.
1. Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) Breast Implants: Final Report of the Working Group. Department of Health, NHS Medical Directorate. 18th June 2012.
2. FDA update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-filled Breast Implants. Centre for Devices and Radiological Health U.S. Food and Drug Administration. June 2011. (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures...)
3. Berry MD and Stanek JJ. The PIP mammary prosthesis; A product recall study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2012):65, 697-704.
Competing interests: No competing interests