Search

Abstract: Many publications deal with the impact of cosmetic breast implants to increase the breast cancer occurence or to delay its diagnosis. We first try to express the clinical and radiological differences in the implanted breast. The diagnostical and therapeutical difficulties were developped to the different technics of imagery, biopsy and specific management of the treatment. On one hand, the litterature revue does not show any significant difference in tumoral stage and nodal status between augmented and nonaugmented women eventhough the mammography sensibility is not as optimal. On the other hand, the global mortality of the augmented population is higher but it appears that this phenomenon could be link to their way of life and is totally independant of breast cancer. Finally, if the diagnosis and the treatment are more complex, the women survival is not altered by breast augmented surgery. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Study Purpose: For ten years the market for resorbable fillers has seen a large increase. A CE mark is sufficient for its placing on the market, they do not require AMM because they are not considered drugs. The Macrolane® is a hyaluronic acid NASHA gel-based technology, available on the French market since 2007 as filler used in all areas of the body except face and breasts. It is highly crosslinked, which slows its resorption, leaving in place long-term waste. At end of 2008, Macrolane® received a CE mark for breast augmentation. The aim of this paper is to review current scientific knowledge on the Macrolane™ and list the many uncertainties regarding its recent breast indication. Materials and methods: We reviewed the PubMed literature and study levels of evidence on Macrolane®. All AFFSAPS communication and correspondence with the SOFCPRE on hyaluronic acids and particularly Macrolane™ were collected. Results: At the moment there is no scientific study of high level of evidence which has studied the effects of Macrolane® on breast parenchyma in terms of carcinogenesis or the disruption of radiological monitoring of the breast. The subglandular method of injection remains complex and uncertain especially about the risk of wrong passage. Conclusions: The Macrolane® is proposed as an alternative less invasive than breast implants. Nevertheless the lack of scientific data on this product led to its non approval by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. Currently there remains too much uncertainty on this filler for reasonable use plebiscite. It would therefore be preferable to return to the manufacturer the burden of proof of Macrolane® safety and security and limit its use in clinical trials yet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]