Silicone Lymphadenopathy Following Augmentation Mammoplasty With Silicone Implants

Abstract

Abstract Background Silicone implants are by far the most widely used implant globally for breast augmentation. Despite technological advancements, complications persist, with silicone lymphadenopathy (siliconoma) being a noteworthy concern. This phenomenon has been inadequately addressed in the existing literature. Objectives The aim of this study was to characterize axillary siliconomas and identify potential risk factors to help reduce their occurrence. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective observational cross-sectional study spanning between 2011 and 2021 at the Shamir Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Israel. Preoperative ultrasound examination was conducted, categorizing patients into those with siliconomas and those without. Results A total of 614 women (1209 breasts) met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of siliconomas was 13.6% (165 breasts). In univariate analysis, older age (47 years vs 43 years, P < .001), older implant age (12.2 years vs 11 years, P = .026), ruptured implants (59.4% vs 17.7%, P < .001), subpectoral placement (P = .019), severe capsular contracture, and the use of Mentor implants (Irvine, CA; P = .007) and Poly Implant Prothèse implants (PIP; La Seyne-sur-Mer, France; P = .001) correlated significantly with the presence of siliconomas. In a multivariate analysis, implant rupture (odds ratio [OR] = 6.342), and implant manufacturer—Mentor (OR = 3.047) and PIP (OR = 3.475)—were identified as independent risk factors associated with a higher incidence of siliconomas. Severe capsular contracture was also associated with a higher incidence of siliconomas (OR = 1.65). Conclusions Surgeons should inform candidates about the potential risk of silicone migration. Patients with ruptured implants, significant capsular contracture, and Mentor and PIP implants face an increased risk for developing siliconomas. Closer monitoring for the detection of siliconomas in the axilla for these patients is advisable, and potential prophylactic replacement or removal of implants may be warranted to mitigate siliconoma risk. Level of Evidence: 3