Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026
A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Poly Implant Prothèse and Rofil Substandard Breast Implant Explantations from a Large German Single Centre from 2011
Moritz Billner1,2, Anna Wirthmann1, Simon Reif3
1Department of Plastic & Aesthetic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe University, Wilhelm-Epstein-Str. 4, 60431, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Background:
Following a Europe-wide scandal, substandard breast implants containing silicone for industry purposes produced by Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP&Rofil) were explanted due to its potential health risks.
Objective:
We investigated whether these implants actually imposed a threat to patients' health.
Methods:
In this retrospective single-centre case-control study, we compared patients with breast augmentation receiving implant explantation (01/2011-01/2015). Data were collected retrospectively from the patients' records. Patients were split into two groups: PIP&Rofil and implants of other manufacturers.
Results:
A total of 307 patients with 495 breast implants met the inclusion criteria, 64 patients with 115 PIP&Rofil implants and 243 patients with 380 implants of other manufacturers. Comparison of descriptive statistics between the two groups revealed that for a variety of indicators (e.g. patient age, breast cancer, aesthetic vs. reconstructive indication, implant volume, submuscular vs. subglandular implant position) PIP implants differ from non-PIP implant patients. Raw mean comparison showed higher rupture rates for non-PIP implants, 28.42 % (PIP 23.48 %). However, when controlling for implant indwelling time, PIP implants had shown higher rupture rates. Both groups had similar rates of capsular contracture (PIP: 71.30 %, Others: 72.63 %) with different distribution of Baker Scores (Baker 2/3/4: PIP 5/8/13 and non-PIP 3/24/135).
Conclusion:
Concerning patient symptoms, we did not find any objective reason to justify implant explantation of PIP&Rofil implants as a solely precautionary measure. As PIP&Rofil implants showed shorter retention periods until rupture and ruptured implants can cause symptoms or health problems, PIP&Rofil implants should be regularly monitored and explanted if there is evidence of rupture.
Level Of Evidence Iii:
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
More Related Videos
05:37Human Internal Mammary Artery IMA Transplantation and Stenting: A Human Model to Study the Development of In-Stent Restenosis
Published on: May 9, 2012
05:31Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022