Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Aesthetic Plast Surg ; 43(4): 918-926, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31049639

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aetiology of capsular contracture around breast implants remains unclear. The leading theory is that a subclinical infection around the implant plays a role in the development of capsular contractions. Several studies found associations between the presence of bacteria and the occurrence of capsular contraction. However, it is unclear whether detected bacteria originate from the breast capsule, breast glandular tissue or skin contamination. Moreover, this has never been investigated with molecular techniques. The aim of this study was to assess the bacterial microbiota on breast capsules, glandular tissue and skin using a highly sensitive PCR assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty breast capsules were collected during implant removal or replacement. Ten specimens of glandular breast tissue and breast skin were collected in females who were undergoing reduction mammoplasty. A sample specimen (4 mm) was sterilely obtained from all tissues. All specimens were analysed by IS-pro, a 16S-23S interspace region-based PCR assay. RESULTS: Low numbers of Staphylococcus spp. (four species in four capsules) were found on breast capsules. There was no difference in bacterial presence between normal and contracted capsules. The skin of the breast-harboured Streptococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. while the glandular tissue was sterile. CONCLUSION: The low numbers of bacteria found on the capsules are most likely caused by contamination during capsule removal. More and larger studies are needed to investigate the bacterial presence on breast capsules using a PCR assay. This is the first study in which breast capsules have been studied using a highly sensitive PCR assay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .


Assuntos
Implante Mamário/efeitos adversos , Implantes de Mama/efeitos adversos , Contratura Capsular em Implantes/microbiologia , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase/métodos , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/microbiologia , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Adulto , Implante Mamário/métodos , Implantes de Mama/microbiologia , Estudos Transversais , DNA Bacteriano/análise , Remoção de Dispositivo , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Contratura Capsular em Implantes/cirurgia , Microbiota , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Infecções Relacionadas à Prótese/epidemiologia , Valores de Referência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open ; 7(1): e2093, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30859048

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) silicone breast implants were removed from the market between 2010 and 2012 because of the use of nonmedical grade silicone filler. The chemical and physico-chemical properties of PIP implants have been analyzed by several groups. In addition, our previous study illustrated that PIP implant shells were more permeable. Therefore, we analyzed the chemical composition of the envelope and gel of PIP silicone breast explants. Also, the composition of absorbed material into the implant was analyzed. METHODS: This study was conducted on 3 PIP implants explanted from 2 patients. The envelope was analyzed using Raman microscopy, whereas the gel was analyzed using near-infrared spectra, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Absorbed material was investigated with Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy and sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. RESULTS: The 3 implants appeared to be Rofil implants, and all implants displayed a yellow color. None of the envelope showed a barrier layer. Amounts of D4, D5, and D6 were found to be below 100 ppm. Water was found in all 3 implants and also proteins were absorbed into the implants. CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows that the analyzed implants originate from the manufacturer Rofil but have PIP1 hallmarks. Apparently, these are own brand labeling implants. The presence of water and proteins in the explants indicate exchange of small and large molecules into the explants, even in the implant with a visually intact envelope. Because of the PIP1 hallmarks of the Rofil implants, patients with such implants are advised to be counseled by their physicians.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...