Destiny rides again: the reappearance of silicone gel-filled breast implant toxicity

Abstract

Background Twenty-five years ago attorneys representing ailing women in class action litigation against silicone breast implant manufacturers made the procedural error of defining silicone-induced toxicity in the courtroom before it was properly studied in the exam room. This aberrant methodology perverted the proper research process, rendered verification of any real disease elusive, and cemented the groundwork for a repeat public health crisis potentially affecting two million women in the USA who possess new silicone gel devices inserted over the past 10 years. Patients and methods Six women, previously well, aged 27 to 53 (mean 42), were recipients of the new generations of cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implants approved for general use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since December of 2006. They averaged seven years of total implantation time, and none experienced implant rupture. Results All six became ill on average 3.5 years from the time of implantation. By seven years the women manifested multiple types of skin rashes, polyarthritis, fatigue, protracted AM stiffness, myalgias, headaches, photosensitivity, hair loss, paresthesias, tinnitus, lymphadenopathy, chest pain, cognitive dysfunction, dry eyes, skin pigment changes, itching, muscle twitching, dizziness, nausea, easy bruising, and odor and smell sensitivity. Three of the four who were explanted noted improvement and/or resolution of at least 50% of their total disease manifestations. Conclusions These six women are representative of over 70,000 other breast implant recipients who, over the past three years, have had their new silicone devices permanently removed because of alleged gel-induced toxicity. The recurrence of this public health crisis has been fueled by manufacturers’ research fraud, FDA ineptness, faulty informed consent, patient abandonment, proprietary manufacturing secrecy, misleading advertising, physician indifference, aberrant research methodology, and lax Congressional oversight.