Effect Of Different Silicone Implantsí Surfaces (smooth, Textured, Nano-textured) On Peri-implant Capsule Formation And Inflammatory Response Development In A Rodent Model
Fabio Santanelli di Pompeo, MD PhD1, Michail Sorotos, MD2.
1University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy, 2University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
PURPOSE: Breast implant safety is a very hot topic. We studied the impact of inflammatory response and periprosthetic capsule formation with four different implantsí surfaces from three different companies.
METHODS: Four groups of 14 Sprague Dawley rats received one scaled-down implant. Each animal received only one implant. Each implant had a different average surface roughness ranging from Group 1 (Ra≈2.48μm) Group 2 (Ra≈0.5μm), Group 3 (Ra≈62μm) Group 4 (Ra≈75μm). All animals received an MRI scan at 60 days. Seven animals of each group were sacrificed at 60 days and the periprosthetic capsules were sent for histology analysis. The remaining 7 animals of each group received an MRI scan at 120 days and afterwards were sacrificed and their periprosthetic capsules were sent for histology analysis.
RESULTS: Mean periprosthetic capsule thickness was higher on MRI for Groups 3 and 4 at 60 days (p<0.001) and 120 days (p=0.980). Mean periprosthetic capsule thickness was higher on histology for Groups 3 and 4 at 60 days (p=0.005) and 120 days (p<0.001). Inflammatory reaction was higher in Group 4 both at 60 (p<0.001) and 120 days (p=0.006). Vascular infiltration was not different among groups at 60 (p=0.256) and 120 days (p=0.452).
CONCLUSION: Smooth implants (Group 1 and 2) lead to a thinner capsule with less inflammatory infiltrate compared to textured implants (Group 3 and 4) in a rodent model.
Back to 2021 Abstracts