What is saline breast implants

The low viscosity of saline also makes the shape of the implant less resistant to local tissue pressure. A patient with a constricted skin envelope in the lower pole may therefore achieve less lower pole projection with a saline implant than with a form-stable silicone gel implant.

This difficulty in controlling the distribution of the fill in a saline breast implant gives the surgeon less control over the breast shape. Even for plastic surgeons not participating in manufacturer-sponsored surveillance studies, it is common practice for surgeons to evaluate silicone gel implant patients on a yearly or biyearly basis to examine the implant and check for problems such as capsular contracture or rupture.

If a surgeon places silicone implants at the rate of pairs of implants a year and normally sees patients in the office approximately days per year 2 days per week, 50 weeks per year , he or she will need to see roughly one patient per office day in follow-up, per year of implants he or she has placed. That would not be a problem for the first two or three years, but after five years, the number of follow-up patients needing to be seen becomes more substantial.

Now consider a practice at 15 years. The surgeon has now placed silicone implants in roughly patients and, to keep up with yearly follow-up, he or she will now need to see 15 long-term follow-up patients during every clinic day.

Even if the surgeon switches to two-year follow-up, seven or eight women will need to be seen every clinic day. By the time a surgeon has been in practice for 22 years and has placed silicone gel implants in close to patients, 22 patients would need to be seen every clinic day to keep up with routine surveillance.

This represents a significant manpower burden. It also raises the question of who is going to pay for these visits. Should patients or surgeons pay for surveillance of the implants? Over the course of several years of implant operations, charging for the time spent on surveillance may ultimately become the only feasible way for a surgeon to manage the situation. Future innovations may ease this situation, and some patients may not be compliant with long-term surveillance, but as it stands, routine yearly screening for rupture or contracture of a silicone gel implant will have important implications.

Plastic surgeons in the US are practicing in an exciting time, when silicone gel has returned to the marketplace and new implant innovations are on the horizon. Although silicone gel is undoubtedly the leader in performance and innovation, saline still has a useful place as an alternative for breast augmentation. With the availability of high-performance, form-stable silicone gel implants, the ability of surgeons to create a more natural-appearing result should be enhanced.

However, as silicone gel implant usage continues to grow, surgeons will have to accommodate more follow-up and surveillance into their practice. As implant choices have evolved, certain concepts have proven useful. When the main determinant for patient satisfaction is the shape and feel of the implant and in cases where the implant might be especially visible , a silicone gel implant is the better choice.

In cases where the primary concerns are safety real or perceived , minimal access incisions, and ease of monitoring, saline may prove to be a better choice. McKinney P Tresley G. Long term comparison of patients with gel and saline mammary implants.

Plast Reconstr Surg ; 72 : 27 - Google Scholar. The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: facts and fiction II. Clin Plast Surg ; 28 : - The safety and efficacy of breast implants for augmentation mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg ; 74 : - Safety of Silicone Breast Implants. Google Preview. Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama.

Am J Roentgenol ; : 1 - 8. History of breast implants and the Food and Drug Administration. Clin Plastic Surg ; 36 : 15 - Brody GS. Safety and efficacy of breast implants. In: Spear SL , editor. Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art. Breast augmentation today: saline versus silicone—what are the facts? Plast Reconstr Surg ; : - The saline versus silicone breast implant debate: separating fact from opinion.

Saline-filled breast implant safety and efficacy, a multicenter retrospective review. On the safety of breast implants. Breast implant rupture and connective tissue disease: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg ; 7 : 62s - 69s.

A review of epidemiologic studies analyzing the relationship between breast implants and connective tissue diseases. Deapen D. Breast implants and breast cancer: a review of incidence, detection, mortality, and survival.

Plast Reconstr Surg ; 1 : 70s - 80s. Handel N. The effect of silicone implants on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg ; 1 : 81s - 93s. Brinton LA. The relationship of silicone breast implants and cancer at other sites. Plast Reconstr Surg ; 1 : 94s - s. Wixtron RN. Silicone breast implants and platinum. Plast Reconstr Surg ; 1 : s - s. Semple JS. Breast feeding and silicone implants. Adverse health outcomes in offspring of mothers with cosmetic breast implants: a review.

Cancer among Scandinavian women with cosmetic breast implants: a pooled long-term follow-up study. Int J Cancer ; : - Incidence of capsular contracture in silicone versus saline cosmetic augmentation mammaplasty: a meta-analysis.

Can J Plast Surg ; 16 4 : - Long-term safety and effectiveness of style highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg ; 33 : - Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation.

Aesthetic Surg J ; 30 : 51 - Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account.

Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents Abstract. Various Perspectives. Silicone GEL Advantages. Saline Advantages. Practice Implications. Breast Implants: Saline or Silicone? Oxford Academic. Breast implant shell surfaces can be smooth or textured.

Smooth walled implants roll around subtly in their breast pocket, mimicking movement of a natural breast, while textured implants encourage soft tissue ingrowth into their small surface interstices, keeping the implant more stiffly in place.

In my practice, I have always preferred smooth breast implants for aesthetic reasons. Now, there is a potential rare safety concern with textured implant surfaces.

Keep reading to learn more…. Breast implants have a variety of base widths, projection amounts and fill volumes. The best implant for each breast will be carefully selected and matched to the space to achieve the specific goals for that particular patient. Saline-filled implants are available to all women over the age of 18 years. Why age 18? That is the age of legal medical consent.

An empty silicone shell is inserted into the body and then filled to its desired volume with saline fluid. In my practice, I use saline breast implants most often for single-stage implant breast reconstruction. It is very empowering to women facing breast cancer! Saline implants are GREAT for situations where we want the implant to remain adjustable after surgery — for instance, breast reconstruction or cases of a rare chest wall deformity such as Poland Syndrome.

However, saline has the consistency of water, and has a higher incidence of seeing or feeling folds of the breast implant under very thin skin. Saline implants are usually not recommended as the best device for cosmetic breast augmentation for this reason. Silicone breast implants still pose a risk when they do not leak.

Evidence suggests that textured implants present the highest risk of cancer. Although saline implants contain only salt water, they also pose significant health risks. Textured saline implants carry the same risk of cancer as textured silicone implants.

However, saline implants are prone to mold, yeast and bacteria growth. This fluid can slowly leak out of the implant and spread throughout the body. The bacteria and mold in saline implants can cause chronic infections and serious health problems when it leaches into the body. Saline implants may also cause the chest muscles to deteriorate, resulting in respiratory problems. Women with any breast implants—saline or silicone, textured or smooth—should be aware of the risk of cancer. When this cancer is caught early, treatment is usually successful.

This form of cancer occurs around 8 to 10 years after implant surgery. If you receive a diagnosis of breast implant-associated cancer, Contact Breast Implant Cancer Advocates for support and a free legal case review. Accessed on April 12, Food and Drug Administration.