Skip to main content

Multiple polyurethane implant punctures during fat grafting: case report and review of the literature

Abstract

Background

Breast augmentation with implants continues to be the most popular aesthetic surgical procedure performed worldwide. Fat grafting may improve the results of breast augmentation and breast reconstruction with implants. However, fat grafting to the breast with implants carries the risk of implant puncture. To our best knowledge this is the first case in which polyurethane implant puncture during fat grafting is described.

Case presentation

We report multiple bilateral implant punctures with the cannula during fat grafting in a patient who previously underwent breast reconstruction with polyurethane implants.

Conclusions

Implants that promote tissue ingrowth may be more prone to puncture with the cannula during fat grafting. Specific planning and surgical maneuvers decrease the risk of implant puncture.

Level of evidence

Level V, case report.

Peer Review reports

Background

Breast augmentation (BA) with implants continues to be the most popular aesthetic surgical procedure performed worldwide [1, 2]. Fat grafting (FG) may improve the results of BA and breast reconstruction with implants by thickening and refining the skin envelope, filling residual defects (rippling, double bubble etc.), adding volume, changing the form and avoiding submuscular implant placement [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Simultaneous combination of BA with implants and FG is called hybrid or composite BA [6, 11, 12, 14, 15]. FG to the breast with implants inside carries the risk of the implant puncture. This is particularly possible if FG is performed as a secondary procedure without visualizing the implant pocket, when tissues are thin, fibrous and force is needed to pass the cannula. The incidence of implant puncture during fat grafting is not reported in the literature.

Case presentation

Patient B, 36 years old made an appointment at another institution complaining of multiple painful lumps in both breasts. She already had a sectoral resection of the right breast because of multiple fibroadenomas two years ago. The anamnesis was unremarkable. She was diagnosed with bilateral fibrocystic breast disease, multiple fibroadenomas of the right breast, BRCA negative. Bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy with DTI subpectoral reconstruction with polyurethane implants and periareolar mastopexy was performed. The postoperative period was unremarkable. Three months after the surgery on the follow up the patient complained of the breast asymmetry and soft tissue deformity and 4 months after primary surgery secondary periareolar mastopexy was performed. The postoperative course was uneventful. 4 months after the second surgery the patient showed up again with the complaints on the breast asymmetry, contour deformity and skin redundancy of the lower pole (Fig. 1a, b). Secondary BA with capsulectomy, implant exchange for new polyurethane implants and circumvertical mastopexy were performed. The postoperative course was uneventful. But soft tissue deficit of the lower pole persisted (Fig. 2). One month after the last surgery FG to the breast was performed (app. 200 ml per breast). 30 days later the patient complained on the local tender nodules in breast bilaterally, redness of the skin. No hyperthermia was determined. Ultrasound revealed implants to be intact, multiple nodules of the lower and lateral quadrants containing fluid were found. Draining of several nodules was performed and antibiotic therapy started. The treatment was intermittently continued for 3 months. Then the patient made an appointment in our clinic (Fig. 3a, b). Implant rupture was suspected in MRI and implant removal with capsulectomy was done. Multiple punctures of both implants were revealed during surgery (Additional file 1, Video 1). The wounds healed primarily. The patient refused to undergo further surgeries.

Fig. 1
figure1

Patient B 8 months after DTI reconstruction with polyurethane implants and periareolar mastopexy, 4 months after secondary periareolar mastopexy. High riding implants. Thin envelope, particularly in the lower pole. a Frontal view, b oblique view

Fig. 2
figure2

Patient B 3 weeks after implant exchange for new polyurethane implants, capsulectomy and circumvertical mastopexy

Fig. 3
figure3

Patient B 4 weeks after FG bilaterally. a Frontal view, b right breast, lateral view

Discussion and conclusions

In 1895 Czerny introduced fat transplantation to the breast [16]. Bruning, Fisher and Illouz were the first to develop liposuction and FG [17,18,19]. FG was then introduced to the breast, its safety proven and nowadays FG to the breast has become a routine procedure with various indications [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

The literature on the possible implant injury during FG is scarce [31,32,33,34,35]. The authors mainly discuss the advantages of FG and usual complications as non-predictable graft take, irregularities, infection, cysts, fat necrosis [30, 36,37,38]. Pneumothorax as a result of FG that has similar mechanism as implant puncture is mentioned in some articles [30, 38].

FG and implant placement can be done simultaneously or in several stages. In case of simultaneous surgery, the surgeon can perform FG on the old implant or using a sizer, introducing the implant after FG or protecting the implant and visualizing its integrity before the wound closure if FG is performed after implant placement [6, 35, 39]. Grafting after the implant placement has the advantage of precise shaping and volume control [40, 41]. It also reduces traumatization of fat and thus potentially adds to fat survival.

If FG is performed after wound closure or at the second stage, it is difficult to control the implant integrity. Recently ultrasound was proposed to intraoperatively control gluteal FG [42]. Although the authors do not have this experience, we consider it to be beneficial in compromised areas to establish proper plane of grafting.

Several measures are important to prevent implant puncture and its consequences.

Detailed informed consent in which a patient agrees to accept the risk of implant puncture, as well as the costs involved in corrective surgery should be signed [33]. Aging of the implants resulting in reduction in tensile strength, tear strength, and elongation of the shell may end with rupture or be the contributing factor of incidental implant puncture during FG [43,44,45]. Thus, MRI should be done preoperatively and the surgeon should consider feasibility of implant exchange in some cases. Optimistically MRI should be performed also postoperatively to rule out implant puncture during FG [33].

To avoid implant injury some authors do not perform FG on the implants with tight, thin breast pockets and scar tissues [33]. Not only does preinfiltration add to the vasoconstriction and anesthesia but it also expands the tissues, which facilitates FG in these problematic areas [40, 41, 46]. FG with the needle is also reported to be useful in scar tissue with very thin envelope over the implant [31].

However, FG to the breast is usually recommended to perform with cannulas [47]. Cannula characteristics influence the possibility of implant puncture. The greater the diameter of the cannula the less likely it may penetrate the implant, and the tip of the cannula can be controlled with more precision. Rigid bent cannulas may also prevent inadvertent implant puncture and help to stay superficially. However, big diameter of the cannula can considerably complicate its advancement in tissues and may interfere with graft survival due to substantial volumes of fat injected in the same spot. The longer the cannula itself and the longer the part of the cannula inside the body, the less the surgeon controls the position of the tip, thus increasing the possibility of inadvertent implant puncture. Obviously, blunt tipped cannulas are less capable of implant puncturing [47]. It has also been also shown that if the holes at the tip of the cannula are positioned at the end (not on the side) significantly less force is needed to penetrate the implant [34].

Technical details of FG directly affect the possibility of implant puncture. FG should be performed subcutaneously [6]. We recommend to use multiple injection points and multiple passes not only to distribute the fat evenly but also to reach recipient areas easier which may contradict the experience of other surgeons who advise to avoid multiple passes in areas with less protection [35]. Longitudinal injection technique also may help to avoid deep injection [33]. Remaining breast implant capsule may protect the implant during FG. It also facilitates FG itself preventing fat from seeping into implant pocket. However, if capsulectomy is planned after FG extra caution is required not to leave free fat in the implant pocket.

Cannula displacement rate during FG directly correlates with the possibility of implant rupture. The more slowly the surgeon moves the cannula the more force he or she needs to rupture the implant [34]. Some authors recommend the ‘sweep technique’ which means that the cannula does not move freely from left to right being in subcutaneous tissues (as opposed to the implant pocket) [35]. However, if the implant is already punctured by the cannula the movements of the cannula from left to right will be also constrained. Thus, FG of the implant may occur. The other factor is that with polyurethane implants there exist no such free space at all because of tissue ingrowth. So, implant type should be known not to be mistaken.

Manipulating the tissues with nondominant hand while advancing the cannula (pinching the skin, lifting it from the implant, distracting etc.) facilitates cannula advancement in a proper direction [33].

Smooth and textured implants move freely inside the pocket. Thus, implant displacement to avoid inadvertent implant puncture is suggested [33, 48]. However, with polyurethane implants this maneuver is useless and even harmful because the tissues are stuck to the implant. In the described case FG was performed one month after polyurethane implant placement when tissue ingrowth may have already become substantial [49]. This probability along with thin tissues and scaring played an important role in the implant puncture. Adherence properties of the implants were mentioned in one publication as a risk factor thus, the authors recommended an open procedure, with or without FG as a safer option [33]. However, FG seems unavoidable in many cases and scars are always the last option. Lastly, implant displacement maneuver may also lead to fat injection into implant pocket that will create another problem (fat necrosis). Thus, we consider that staying superficial with the cannula with the tip facing the skin is more reliable to avoid these two complications.

In summary, the following recommendations diminish the risk of puncture:

  • Consider performing FG without the implant in place, on the old implant before implant exchange or on the expander or sizer;

  • If the implant is placed simultaneously, perform FG before wound closure;

  • If FG is performed secondarily, obtain the data about the implants used for the patient and their biointegration properties. Tissue ingrowth may contribute to implant puncture;

  • Be aware of old implants that may have lost elasticity and strength of the shell—consider implant exchange with simultaneous FG;

  • Consider infiltration for hydrodissection and vasoconstriction; use a needle for very superficial injections in thin tissues;

  • Use ultrasound intraoperatively to guide the cannula and establish the proper plane of grafting in compromised areas;

  • Consider performing pretunelling;

  • Use blunt tipped cannulas with side-positioned holes;

  • Direct the tip of the cannula towards the skin surface, use bended cannulas;

  • Inject longitudinally;

  • Move the cannula slowly and gently;

  • Manipulate the soft tissues with nondominant hand while advancing the cannula;

  • Choose multiple injection entry points to graft difficult and remote areas;

  • Use deeper positioning of the implant (retrofascial, retropectoral);

  • Displace the implant away from the injection site;

  • Avoid intrapectoral FG.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

BA:

Breast augmentation

FG:

Fat grafting

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

BRCA:

Breast cancer gene

DTI:

Direct to implant

References

  1. 1.

    Cosmetic (Aesthetic) National Databank Statistics. https://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/ASAPS-Stats2018_0.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2020.

  2. 2.

    ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures performed in 2018. https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ISAPS-Global-Survey-Results-2018-new.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2020.

  3. 3.

    Rigotti G, Marchi A, Galie M, et al. Clinical treatment of radiotherapy tissue damage by lipoaspirate transplant: a healing process mediated by adipose-derived adult stem cells. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1409–22 ((discussion1423–1424)).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zheng D, Li Q, Lei H, et al. Autologous fat grafting to the breast for cosmetic enhancement: experience in 66 patients with long-term follow up. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61:792–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Delay E, Garson S, Tousson G, et al. Fat injection to the breast: technique, results, and indications based on 880 procedures over 10 years. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(5):360–76.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Auclair E, Blondeel P, Del Vecchio DA. Composite breast augmentation: Soft-tissue planning using implants and fat. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:558–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Auclair E, Anavekar N. Combined use of implant and fat grafting for breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42:307–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bravo F. Parasternal infiltration composite breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1010–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kerfant N, Henry A, Hu W, Marchac A, Auclair E. Subfascial primary breast augmentation with fat grafting: a review of 156 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1080–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Serra-Mestre J, Fernandez Peñuela R, Foti V, D’Andrea F, Serra-Renom J. Breast cleavage remodeling with fat grafting: a safe way to optimize symmetry and to reduce intermammary distance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5):665–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Maione L, Caviggioli F, Vinci V, Lisa A, Barbera F, Siliprandi M, Battistini A, Klinger F, Klinger M. Fat graft in composite breast augmentation with round implants: a new concept for breast reshaping. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(6):1465–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Auclair E, Marchac A, Kerfant N. Secondary composite breast augmentation: concept and outcomes, introduction to a layered approach. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(9):981–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Sampaio Goes J, Munhoz A, Gemperli R. The subfascial approach to primary and secondary breast augmentation with autologous fat grafting and form-stable implants. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):551–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Calabrese S, Zingaretti N, Zanin C, Fin A, Mura S, Parodi PC. Hybrid breast reconstruction: preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(2):e1660.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Maximiliano J, Munhoz A, Pedron M, de Oliveira A, Duarte D, Neto R, Portinho C, Collares M. Hybrid breast augmentation: a reliable formula for preoperative assessment of fat graft volume based on implant volume and projection. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(8):NP438–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Shiffman M. History of autologous fat transfer. In: Shiffman MA, editor. Autologous fat transplantation. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2001. p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bruning P. Contribution a l’étude des greffes adipeuses. Bull Acad R Med Belg. 1919;28:440–4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Teimourian B, Fisher J. Suction curettage to remove excess fat for body contouring. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;68:50–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Illouz YG. The fat cell ‘graft’: a new technique to fill depressions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78(1):122–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Coleman WP III. Autologous fat transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88(4):736.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bircoll M. Cosmetic breast augmentation utilizing autologous fat and liposuction techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;79:267–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bircoll M, Novack BH. Autologous fat transplantation employing liposuction techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 1987;18:327–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kneeshaw P, Lowry M, Manton D, Hubbard A, Drew P, Turnbull L. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast disease associated with screening detected microcalcifications using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast. 2006;15:29–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pierrefeu-Lagrange A, Delay E, Guerin N, Chekaroua K, Delaporte T. Radiological evaluation of breasts reconstructed with lipomodeling (in French). Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2006;51:18–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Missana M, Laurent I, Barreau L, et al. Autologous fat transfer in reconstructive breast surgery: indications, technique and results. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(6):685–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gutowski K. ASPS fat graft task force. Current applications and safety of autologous fat grafts: A report of the ASPS fat graft task force. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:272–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    ASPS. post-mastectomy fat graft/fat transfer ASPS guiding principles. Arlington Heights: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Largo R, Tchang L, Mele V, et al. Efficacy, safety and complications of autologous fat grafting to healthy breast tissue: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;67(4):437–48.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Spear SL, Pittman T. A prospective study on lipoaugmentation of the breast. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:400–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Spear S, Coles C, Leung B, Gitlin M, Parekh M, Macarios D. The safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of autologous fat grafting in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4(8):e827.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Maione L, Vinci V, Klinger M, Klinger F, Caviggioli F. Autologous fat graft by needle: analysis of complications after 1000 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(3):277–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Cogliandro A, Barone M, Tenna S, Copolla M, Persichetti P. The role of lipofilling after breast reconstruction: evaluation of outcomes and patient satisfaction with breast-Q. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2017;41(6):1325–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bresnick S. Management of a common breast augmentation complication. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(1):18–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Leslie L, Sheena Y, Shepherd D, Ismail A, Kukureka S, Vijh V. In vitro investigation into the forces involved during lipofilling. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018;232(11):1111–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Agrawal N, Xue E, Chang D, Kelly M, Izaddoost S. Four techniques to avoid implant puncture while fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(2):466e–7e.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Spear S, Wilson H, Lockwood M. Fat injection to correct contour deformities in the reconstructed breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;5:1300–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Losken A, Pinell X, Sikoro K, et al. Autologous fat grafting in secondary breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:518–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Petit J, Lohsiriwat V, Clough K, et al. The oncological outcome and immediate surgical complication of lipofilling in breast cancer patients: a multicenter study—Milan–Paris–Lyon experience of 646 lipofilling procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:341–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Zanin C, Calabrese S, Rampino Cordaro E, Marchesi A, Parodi P. Chronological order of lipofilling during implant exchange. Plastic Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Del Vecchio D. SIEF: Simultaneous implant exchange with fat—a new option in revision breast implant surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:1187–96.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Khouri R, Del Vecchio D. Breast reconstruction and augmentation using pre-expansion and autologous fat transplantation. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36:269–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cansancao AL, Condé-Green A, Vidigal RA, Rodriguez RL, D’Amico RA. Real-time ultrasound-assisted gluteal fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(2):372–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    US Food and Drug Administration. Labeling of approved breast implants. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/ucm063743.htm. Accessed 2 June 2020.

  44. 44.

    Marotta J, Goldberg E, Habal M, et al. Silicone gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prostheses and meta analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;49(3):227–47.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Handel N, Garcia ME, Wixtrom R. Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):1128–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Del Vecchio D, Wall S. Expansion vibration lipofilling: a new technique in large-volume fat transplantation [published correction appears in Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jul;142(1):295]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(5):639e–49e.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Lipomodelling guidelines for breast surgery. London: Association of Breast Surgery, British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons; 2012.

  48. 48.

    Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D. The serial free fat transfer in irradiated prosthetic breast reconstructions. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:695–700.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Batiukov D, Podgaiski V, Ladutko D. Removal of polyurethane implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43(1):70–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

No funding was used for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DB has done literature review, formatted manuscript, took part in the diagnosis and treatment, VP formatted and designed the manuscript, took part in differential diagnosis and treatment, DM and SK performed surgeries, described the case, took part in literature review. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dmitry Batiukov.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

Competing interests

D. Batiukov received a speaker honorarium from POLYTECH Health & Aesthetics. V. Podgaiski, D. Mikulich and S. Kalinin declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Video 1. Multiple right breast implant punctures found with the implant in situ.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batiukov, D., Podgaiski, V., Mikulich, D. et al. Multiple polyurethane implant punctures during fat grafting: case report and review of the literature. BMC Surg 20, 248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00915-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Polyurethane implants
  • Fat grafting
  • Implant puncture
  • Breast reconstruction
  • Breast augmentation
  • Implant puncture