Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34542618›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Assessment of Silicone Particle Migration Among Women Undergoing Removal or Revision of Silicone Breast Implants in the Netherlands.

Henry B P M Dijkman, Inca Slaats, Peter Bult

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The Role of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Breast Implant Illness.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Silicone Migration from Intact Saline Breast Implants.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Henry B P M DijkmanHAN University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Applied Biosciences and Chemistry, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Inca SlaatsHAN University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Applied Biosciences and Chemistry, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Peter BultDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
HAN University of Applied Sciences · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Silicone breast implants have been on the market for breast augmentation or breast reconstruction for approximately 60 years but may lead to medical complications, also called breast implant illness. Objective: To evaluate the existence of silicone gel bleed and migration over a long time period, including the period in which the newer cohesive silicone gel breast implants were used. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-center case series, capsule tissue and lymph node samples were collected from women who underwent removal or revision of silicone breast implants from January 1, 1986, to August 18, 2020, and data were extracted from the pathological reports and revision of the histology if data were missing. All tissues were examined using standard light microscopy, some extended with modified oil red O staining and energy-dispersive radiographic spectroscopy. A total of 365 women had capsular tissue removed, including 15 patients who also had lymph nodes removed, and 24 women had only lymph nodes removed. Data were analyzed from January to May 2021. Exposures: Silicone breast implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was presence or absence of silicones inside or outside the capsule. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significance between groups. Results: Among a total of 389 women with silicone breast implants (mean [SD] age, 50.5 [11.2] years), 384 women (98.8%) had silicone particles present in the tissues, indicating silicone gel bleed. In 337 women (86.6%), silicone particles were observed outside the capsule (ie, in tissues surrounding the capsule and/or lymph nodes), indicating silicone migration. In 47 women (12.1%), silicone particles were only present within the capsule. In 5 women (1.2%), no silicone particles were detected in the tissues. Patients were divided into 2 groups, with 46 women who received cohesive silicone gel breast implants and 343 women who received either an older or a newer type of breast implant. There were no differences in silicone gel bleed or migration between groups (silicone detected outside or inside capsule: 44 women [95.7%] vs 340 women [99.1%]; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series including women with noncohesive or cohesive silicone gel breast implants, silicone leakage occurred in 98.8% of women, indicating silicone gel bleed, and in 86.6% of women, migration of silicone particles outside the capsule was detected.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsDevice RemovalReoperationSilicone GelsFemaleForeign-Body MigrationHumansMiddle AgedNetherlandsSilicone Gels

Identifiers

PMID34542618
PMCPMC8453317
OpenAlexW3200163669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.