The Controversy Continues For Silicone Breast Implants

Implications: There is continued controversy regarding silicone breast implants despite substantial scientific proof that they are a safe long-term option.

There are several implications made in this article that are grossly incorrect.



Analysis: The controversy of whether silicone breast implants are safe continues to rage despite several years of studies by both the implant manufacturers as well as private groups that essentially dispel any association with human adjuvant disease.  A moratorium was placed on the use of silicone implants following a one-sided "expose" by journalist Connie Chung in the mid 90's.  But, interestingly, despite this moratorium, silicone implants continued to be available in Europe and South America where very little, if any, concerns were voiced over their safety.  In addition, through an FDA IRB protocol, they were made available to patients who fit one of 3 main criteria:  patients needing a concomitant breast lift, patients who had seemingly failed saline implants, and patients who were candidates for reconstruction following mastectomy.  The question that should be raised is, if these implants were truly unsafe, why would they be available to anyone?  The ban just didn't make sense. 

Now that they are back on the market, the same groups that have protested their use in the past continue to rage on despite scientific proof that essentially undermines the credibility of these groups' claims.  Most notably, the fear of migration has been suggested as a danger for use of the implants even though the newer implants contain a cohesively-bonded form of silicone which makes it extremely unlikely for any movement of the gel outside of what is essentially now more of a breast form than a liquid gel consistency.  Implant shells have also been modified since the early years to limit dramatically the amount of "gel bleed" possible. 

While there are upsides and downsides of any implant, the consumer should really be the one who decides whether they are willing to accept these risks and move forward...not some group with a clearly unsubstantiated agenda.  In so doing, they are simply removing an effective option for these women and essentially reducing their ability to choose.