Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 70–79 | Cite as

Types of Errors Made During Breast Augmentation with Polyurethane Implants: A Systematic Review

  • D. BatiukovEmail author
  • V. Podgaiski
  • D. Ladutko
Review Breast Surgery



Implementation of polyurethane-covered (PU) implants into practice requires a reassessment of the experience and a learning curve period. Occasional publications describe a few difficulties in this regard. However, there are no publications covering the spectrum of errors. The absence of definite information and contradictory findings makes the learning curve longer leading to many unsatisfactory results.

Materials and Methods

The systematization is based on the 12 years of experience with over 1000 patients and previously published data. A literature review was conducted using PUBMED with the following keywords: polyurethane or foam or sponge and breast and implant. A total of 285 articles were found (last accessed 08/13/2019). All articles concerning polyurethane implants were studied along with any articles found describing the surgical techniques applied to them. Additional references found in the above-mentioned articles were also included in the study.


All errors can be divided into planning errors, errors in pocket development and surface-dependent errors, for which the polyurethane surface is the main reason. Surface-dependent errors include the errors connected to positioning and biointegration. The possible causes of late seroma with PU implants are discussed.


The polyurethane surface should not be considered textured in the clinical point of view. Previous experience with non-PU implants cannot be transferred to PU implants. The learning curve is unavoidable. The systematization of errors with PU implants facilitates a decision-making process during the primary and secondary surgery and lowers the risk of the unsatisfactory results.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors


Polyurethane implants Breast augmentation Secondary breast surgery High-riding implants Implant malposition Bottoming out 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

D Batiukov received a speaker honorarium from POLYTECH Health & Aesthetics. V. Podgaiski and D. Ladutko declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

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

Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

Video 1. Positioning error. Both implants are bended anteriorly in this patient (MP4 14430 kb)

Video 2. Positioning error (implant-tissue interactions). Double bubble formation (MP4 19988 kb)

Video 3. Biointegration error. Only the second sheeting of PU implant remained attached to the tissues in the long term (MP4 26360 kb)


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    FDA update on the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants. Accessed June 2019
  4. 4.
    Vázquez G, Pellón A (2007) Polyurethane-coated silicone gel breast implants used for 18 years. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(4):330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleming D, Handel M, Gutierrez J (2012) Polyurethane foam covered breast implants. In: Peters W, Brandon H, Jerina KL, Wolf C, Young VL (eds) Biomaterials in plastic surgery. Elsevier, New York, pp 96–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castel N, Soon-Sutton T, Deptula P, Flaherty A, Parsa F (2015) Polyurethane-coated breast implants revisited: a 30-year follow-up. Arch Plast Surg 42(2):186–193PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duxbury P, Harvey J (2016) Systematic review of the effectiveness of polyurethane-coated compared with textured silicone implants in breast surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(4):452–460PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frame J (2016) Commentary on: the modern polyurethane-coated implant in breast augmentation: long-term clinical experience. Aesthet Surg J 36(10):1130–1132PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G (2016) The modern polyurethane-coated implant in breast augmentation: long-term clinical experience. Aesthet Surg J 36(10):1124–1129PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pompei S, Arelli F, Labardi L, Marcasciano F, Evangelidou D, Ferrante G (2017) Polyurethane implants in 2-stage breast reconstruction: 9-year clinical experience. Aesthet Surg J 37(2):171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stan C, Biggs T (2017) The diagon/gel implant: a preliminary report of 894 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(7):e1393PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berrino P, Galli A, Rainero M, Santi P (1986) Long-lasting complications with the use of polyurethane-covered breast implants. Br J Plast Surg 39(4):549–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hester T (1988) The polyurethane covered mammary prosthesis: facts and Fiction. Perspect Plast Surg 2:135–164Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parsa F (1988) Displaced inframammary fold after Même breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 81(4):643–644PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hester T (1990) Diagnosis and treatment of complications occurring with polyurethane-covered breast implants. Perspect Plast Surg 4:105–111Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohney B, Cohney T, Hearne V (1991) Nineteen years experience with polyurethane foam-covered mammary prosthesis: a preliminary report. Ann Plast Surg 27(1):27–30PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gasperoni C, Salgarello M, Gargani G (1992) Polyurethane-covered mammary implants: a 12-year experience. Ann Plast Surg 29(4):303–308PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brickman M, Parsa N, Parsa F (2004) Late hematoma after breast implantation. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:80–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dini G, Ferreira L (2006) Early complication with the use of polyurethane-covered breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(6):2098–2100PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prado A, Andrades P, Benitez S (2006) A word of caution on the explantation of polyurethane breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117(5):1655–1657PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith M, Durrani A (2011) Aiding the insertion of polyurethane coated breast implants. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(7):556PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dini M, Giordano V, Quattrini L, Mori A, Napoli S (2011) Double capsules: our experience with polyurethane-coated silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(3):819–820PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rancati A, Soderini A, Dorr J, Gercovich G, Tessari L, Gonzalez E (2013) One-step breast reconstruction with polyurethane-covered implants after skin-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(12):1671–1675PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castello M, Han S, Silvestri A et al (2014) A simple method to inset and position polyurethane-covered breast implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 38:365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scarpa C, Borso G, Vindigni V, Bassetto F (2015) Polyurethane foam-covered breast implants: a justified choice? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:1600–1606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frame J (2017) The waterfall effect in breast augmentation. Gland Surg 6(2):193–202PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tebbetts J (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(4):1396–1409 (discussion 1410-5) PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hedén P (2009) Mastopexy augmentation with form stable breast implants. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):91–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mallucci P, Branford O (2016) Design for natural breast augmentation: the ICE principle. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(6):1728–1737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mallucci P, Branford OA (2012) Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(1):8–16PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    LoVerme P, Kelleher J (1986) Saline float positioning of the polyurethane-covered breast prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 77(5):845–846PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miro A (2009) Polyurethane-coated silicone breast implants: evaluation of 14 years experience. Rev Bras Cir Plast 24(3):296–303Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Georgeu G, Frame J, Frame J Jr (2013) Conical polyurethane implants: an uplifting augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 33:1116–1128PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Handel N, Gutierrez J (2006) Long-term safety and efficacy of polyurethane foam-covered breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 26(3):265–274PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brunnert KE (2015) The micropolyurethane foam-coated Diagon/Gel®4Two implant in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery – 3-year results of an ongoing study. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 4: Doc20Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoefflin S (1990) Extensive experience with polyurethane breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 86(1):166–167PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Melmed E (1990) Treatment of breast contractures with open capsulotomy and replacement of gel prostheses with polyurethane-covered implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 86(2):270–274PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Collis Nicholas, Sharpe David T (2000) Recurrence of subglandular breast implant capsular contracture: anterior versus total capsulectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 106(4):792–797PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoffman S (1989) Correction of established capsular contractures with polyurethane implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 13:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ashley F (1972) A further studies on the natural-Y breast prothesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 49(4):414–419PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Artz S, Dinner M, Foglietti M (1991) Breast reconstruction utilizing subcutaneous tissue expansion followed by polyurethane-covered silicone implants: a 6-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 88(4):635–639PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pennisi V (1990) Long-term use of polyurethane breast prostheses: a 14-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 86(2):368–371PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Batiukov D, Podgaiski V, Ladutko D (2019) Removal of polyurethane implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(1):70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tebbetts J (2002) Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(1):273–290 (discussion 291-2) PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tebbetts J (2002) Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part II. Patient preparation, refined surgical techniques, and instrumentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(1):293–305 (discussion 306-7) PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schlesinger S (1989) The use of surgilube for inserting the polyurethane-covered gel-filled mammary implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 84(4):703 (Comment on Displaced inframammary fold after Même breast augmentation. [Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988]) PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Walkinson T (1985) Polyurethane-coated Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 75(6):925–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vázquez G (1999) Ten-year experience using polyurethane-covered breast implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 23(3):189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    de la Penã-Salcedo J, Soto-Miranda M, Lopez-Salguero J (2012) Back to the future: a 15-year experience with polyurethane foam covered breast implants using the partial-subfascial technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(2):331e8Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hall-Findlay E (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:56–66PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hall-Findlay E (2011) Reply: breast implant complication review double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(3):818–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sforza M (2018) Breast implants associated ALCL (BIAALCL): a personal overview for patients. J Surg Open Access. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Grindlay J, Clagett O (1949) A plastic sponge prosthesis for use after pneumonectomy; preliminary report of an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the staff meet mayo clinic 12, vol 24, no 21, p 538Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pangman W 2nd, Wallace R, Hills B (1955) The use of plastic prosthesis in breast plastic and other soft tissue surgery. West J Surg Obstet Gynecol 63(8):503–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Edgerton M, McClary A (1958) Augmentation mammaplasty; psychiatric implicationsand surgical indications; (with special reference to use of the polyvinyl alcohol sponge ivalon). Plast Reconstr Surg Transpl Bull 21(4):279–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schwartz A, Erich J (1960) Experimental study of polyvinylformal (ivalon) sponge as a substitute for tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg Transpl Bull 25:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Howell D, Delchamps E, Riemer W (1961) Spontaneous mineral deposition in sponge biopsy connective tissue. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 106:317–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pangman W (1965) Compound prosthesis device, US Patent 2,842,775Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pangman W (1958) Compound prosthesis, US Patent 3,189,921Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pangman W (1971) Compound prosthesis, US Patent 3,559,214Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ashley FL (1970) A new type of breast prosthesis. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 45(5):421–424PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Barr S, Bayat A (2011) Breast implant surface development: perspectives on development and manufacture. Aesthet Surg J 31(1):56–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cohney B, Cohney T, Hearne V (1992) Augmentation mammaplasty–a further review of 20 years using the polyurethane-covered prosthesis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 1:269–279PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Capozzi A, Pennisi V (1981) Clinical experience with polyurethane-covered gel-filled mammary prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 68(4):512–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Batich C, Williams J, King R (1989) Toxic hydrolysis product form a biodegradable foam implant. J Biomed Mater Res 23(suppl A3):311–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chan S, Birdsell D, Gradeen C (1991) Detection of toluenediamines in the urine of a patient with polyurethane-covered breast implants. Clin Chem 37:756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chan S, Birdsell D, Gradeen C (1991) Urinary excretion of free toluenediamines in a patient with polyurethane-covered breast implants. Clin Chem 37:2143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Benoit FM (1993) Degradation of polyurethane foams used in the Même breast implant. J Biomed Mater Res 27(10):1341–1348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Quaid J (1989) Method for making open-cell, silicone-elastomer medical implant, US patent 4889744Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yan J, Purkait B (1991) Method of making textured surface prosthesis implants, US patent 5022942Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Burkhardt B, Eades E (1995) The effect of biocell texturing and povidone-iodine irrigation on capsular contracture around saline-inflatable breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1317–1325PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Risk Assessment Meeting on Polyurethane-Coated Breast Implants, US Food & Drug Administration, Washington, June 26, 1991Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Canadian Medical Association (1991) Safety of polyurethane-covered breast implants expert panel on the safety of polyurethane-covered breast implants. CMAJ 145(9):1125–1132 (Review. English, French) Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Harris H (1961) Survey of breast implants from the point of view of carcinogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg Transpl Bull 28:81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dunn K, Hall P, Khoo C (1992) Breast implant materials: sense and safety. Br J Plast Surg 45:315–321PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Daka J, Chawla A (1993) Release of chemicals from polyurethane foam in the Même breast implant. Biomater Artif Cells Immobil Biotechnol 21(1):23–46Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Food and Drug Administration (1995) Update: Study of TDA Released from Polyurethane Foam-Covered Breast Implants. Rockville, Md: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Jun 27, 1995. POLYURETHANE/toxicology/generalGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hester T, Ford N, Gale P et al (1997) Measurement of 2,4-toluenediamine in the urine and serum samples from women with Même or Replicon breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1291–1298PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bondurant S, Ernster V, Herdman R (eds) Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Safety of Silicone Breast Implants. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kulig K (1998) Lifetime risk from polyurethane covered breast implants. Environ Health Perspect 106(11):A526–A527PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Luu H, Hutter J, Bushar H (1998) A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for 2,4-toluenediamine leached from polyurethane foam-covered breast implants. Environ Health Perspect 106(7):393–400PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
  83. 83.
    ISO International Organization for Standardization. ISO 1460: 2018—Non-active surgical implants—Mammary implants—Particular requirements. Accessed January 7, 2019
  84. 84.
    Hamdi M (2019) Association between breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) risk and polyurethane breast implants: clinical evidence and european perspective. Aesthet Surg J 39(Supplement_1):S49–S54PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bizjak M, Selmi C, Praprotnik S et al (2015) Silicone implants and lymphoma: the role of inflammation. J Autoimmun 65:64–73PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hu H, Jacombs A, Vickery K, Merten S, Pennington D, Deva A (2015) Chronic biofilm infection in breast implants is associated with an increased T-cell lymphocytic infiltrate: implications for breast implant-associated lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(2):319–329PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kadin M, Deva A, Xu H et al (2016) Biomarkers provide clues o early events in the pathogenesis of breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Aesthet Surg J 36(7):773–781PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Atlan M, Nuti G, Wang H, Decker S, Perry T (2018) Breast implant surface texture impacts host tissue response. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 88:377–385PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Jacombs A, Tahir S, Hu H et al (2014) In vitro and in vivo investigation of the influence of implant surface on the formation of bacterial biofilm in mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(4):471e–480ePubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Center “Antes Med”MinskBelarus
  2. 2.Belorussian Medical Academy of Postgraduate EducationMinskBelarus
  3. 3.Department of MicrosurgeryMinsk Regional HospitalLesnoe, Minsk RegionBelarus

Personalised recommendations