Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new biologically, osmotically, and oncotically balanced gel that shows calcifications blocked by silicone

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The radiodensity of silicone gel-filled breast implants is well documented. It has been suggested that silicone gel may block the transmission of x-rays sufficiently to prevent visualization of microcalcifications that are frequently an indicator of malignancy. A new biologically, oncotically balanced gel has been developed that has increased radiotranslucency to approximately the density of normal breast tissue, increased lubrication qualities, and is quickly and safely eliminated by the body should the shell rupture. We present a case wherein a patient's mammogram was read as negative two years prior to breast reaugmentation due to Baker IV capsular contracture. During surgery, complete calcification of the capsule was discovered, as well as two ruptured prostheses; neither condition had been detected by the mammogram. These capsules, with their calcifications and scar intact, were removed in toto and radiographically compared through standard silicone gel-filled breast implants and through implants containing the new biologically, osmotically, oncotically balanced gel. The calcifications were completely obscured by the silicone gel-filled prosthesis and completely visible when viewed through the bio-oncotic gel-filled prosthesis. Postoperative mammograms confirmed the radiolucency of the new gel-filled prostheses. This new gel appears to be a reasonable alternative to silicone gel for filling breast implants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beisang AB, Geise R, Ersek RA: Radiolucent prosthetic gel. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(5):885–892, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blecher L, Lorenz HL, Lowd AS et al: In Davidson RL (ed): Handbook of Water Soluble Gums and Resins. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980, chap 21

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cronin TD, Gerow F: Augmentation mammaplasty: A new “natural feel” prosthesis. Trans 3rd Int Congr Plast Surg. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica Foundation, 1964

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deapen DM, Pike MC, Casagrande JT et al: The relation between breast cancer and augmentation mammaplasty: an epidemiological study. Plast Reconstr Surg 77:365, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dershaw DD, Chaglassian TA: Mammography for prosthesis placement for augmentation or reconstructive mammoplasty. Radiology 170:69, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS: Improved imaging of the augmented breast. Am J Radiol 151:469, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ersek RA, Glaes KL: Rate and incidence of capsular contracture: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone double-lumen breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 87(5):879–884, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gumucio CA, Pin P, Young VL et al: The effect of breast implants on the radiographic detection of microcalcifications and soft tissue masses. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:772, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hayes H Jr, Vandergrift J, Diner WC: Mammography and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 82:1, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leis HP Jr: Epidemiology of breast cancer: Identification of the high risk woman. In: Gallager HS (ed): The Breast. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1978, chap 4, pp 37–48

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ersek RA, Burroughs JR, Ersek CL, Navarro A: Interrelationship of capsule thickness and breast hardness confirmed by a new measurement method. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1069, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rubin LR: Degradation of the saline filled silicone bag breast implant. In: Rubin LR (ed): Biomaterials in Reconstructive Surgery. St. Louis:C.V. Mosby, 1985, pp 260–272

    Google Scholar 

  13. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. Dept Health Human Services (NIOSH) Publ. No. 81116. 2:114, 1980

  14. Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P et al: Breast cancer in women after augmentation mammoplasty. Arch Surg 123:681, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  15. Silverstein MJ, Gamagami P, Handel N: Missed breast cancer in an augmented woman using implant displacement mammography. Ann Plast Surg 25:210, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  16. Williams JE: Experience with a long series of Silastic breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 49:253, 1972

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 900 E. 30th St. Suite 309, 78705, Austin, TX, USA

    Robert A. Ersek M.D. (F.A.C.S.), Gerry A. Ersek, Cynthia L. Ersek & John Williams M.D. (F.A.C.S.)

Authors
  1. Robert A. Ersek M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerry A. Ersek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia L. Ersek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Williams M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Note: Dr. Ersek is a shareholder of Bioplasty, Inc. and therefore has a financial interest in this gel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ersek, R.A., Ersek, G.A., Ersek, C.L. et al. A new biologically, osmotically, and oncotically balanced gel that shows calcifications blocked by silicone. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 17, 331–334 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00437107

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00437107

Key words

Search

Navigation