Ralph R. Cook

The prevalence of women with breast implants in the United States—1989

Most estimates of the number of women with breast implants appear to be extrapolations of industry or clinical data. While both provide valuable information, the former about the total number of devices ever produced or sold and the latter about the cumulative number of surgeries performed, neither can be used to directly estimate the prevalence of women with silicone gel or saline implants. In 1989, Market Facts, Inc., conducted a mail survey of 40,000 households chosen as representative of the population of the United States and received responses from 70.7%. Overall, the prevalence was 8.08 per 1,000 women with about 60% of the devices reportedly implanted for cosmetic reasons. The procedure was more common among Whites of the higher socio-economic classes. Based upon the results of this survey, the total number of US women in 1989 with breast implants was estimated to be 815,700 (95% confidence interval: 715,757-924,729).

Breast implants and cancer: causation, delayed detection, and survival.

Concern for many women with breast implants has been focused on three topics: cancer (both breast and other cancers), delayed detection of breast cancer, and increased breast cancer recurrence or decreased length of survival. In this study, a qualitative review of the literature on these subjects was conducted, coupled with a metaanalysis of the risk for breast cancer or other cancers (excluding that of the breast). Researchers have consistently found no persuasive evidence of a causal association between breast implants and any type of cancer. The metaanalysis results obtained by combining the epidemiology studies support the overall conclusion that breast implants do not pose any additional risk for breast cancer (relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.85) or for other cancers (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.24). This analysis suggests that breast implants may confer a protective effect against breast cancer. Women with implants should be reassured by the consistency of scientific studies which have uniformly determined that, compared with women without implants, they are not at increased risk for cancer, are not diagnosed with later‐stage breast malignancies, are not at increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, and do not have a decreased length of survival. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 107: 1393, 2001.)

A meta-analysis of breast implants and connective tissue disease

Case reports have raised questions about an increased risk of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) among women with breast implants. From the reviews of more than 2,600 manuscripts, abstracts, and dissertations, this meta-analysis included 13 epidemiology studies that provided a relative risk (RR) estimate for the possible association between breast implants and CTDs. The meta-analysis summary RR was 0.76 for CTD in general (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 1.04; homogeneity p-value = 0.073) and was 0.98 for scleroderma (95% CI: 0.57, 1.64; homogeneity p = 0.006). Irrespective of which studies were aggregated in this meta-analysis, there was no significant increased risk for scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, or CTD in general. Conclusions from this study are consistent with the most recent review by the British Medical Devices Agency that found no scientific evidence to date of an increased risk of CTD associated with silicone gel breast implants.

Silicone gel breast implant rupture rates: research issues.

Documenting the rate of rupture of silicone breast implants appears to be deceptively easy. Largely because of the phenomenon of “silent rupture,” it isn’t. The authors explore the various technical biases (selection, misclassification, and confounding) and methodological problems that have plagued much of the research conducted to date. By means of a series of illustrations, they argue that explantation has limited utility. Noninvasive techniques have to be used to gather the proper type of data on the timing and frequency of these events. Only with the proper incidence data will researchers be able to identify better the different mechanisms underlying implant rupture and the relative importance of each. The authors recommend that better and standardized definitions of implant rupture be developed, that greater recognition be given to the technical biases and a greater effort be made to eliminate them from investigations of implant rupture, and that more research be conducted by multidisciplinary teams. Because of the growing awareness of the complexity of this issue, the authors also recommend that properly constituted advisory teams be used to provide comprehensive oversight of future research projects from beginning to end.