Review of breast implant safety

A defective silicone gel breast implant, which was removed from a patient and manufactured by French company Poly Implant Prothese PIP implants were banned last year as they contain unauthorised silicone filler

Related Stories

Now that the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has ordered a review of the safety data on the banned PIP breast implants, we may be closer to solving a puzzle.

The puzzle is this - why did the French medical watchdog find that the implants have a 5% rupture rate, whereas the equivalent body here, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), found a 1% rupture rate - no worse than other makes?

That was a key reason why the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was adamant last week that the routine removal of the implants was unnecessary.

Around 40,000 British women have the implants, which were banned last year because they contain non medical-grade silicone. 95% of the operations were done in the private sector. The MHRA relies on data from private providers concerning safety problems with implants.

Yesterday a significant private health provider gave conflicting new evidence which revealed a higher rupture rate than their previous submitted data. This prompted Mr Lansley to launch a review of the evidence. He said he was "concerned and unhappy about the consistency and quality of data" given by private providers.

Start Quote

I want to give further reassurance to women that if there are any safety concerns we will act with whatever remedy that is required.”

End Quote Andrew Lansley Health Secretary

The review body, led by the NHS Medical Director, Professor Bruce Keogh will analyse rupture data here and overseas and report back next week.

Mr Lansley said: "I want to give further reassurance to women that if there are any safety concerns we will act with whatever remedy that is required. But at present we don't evidence that would justify any routine removal of these implants, nor do we have safety concerns."

This review may have wider implications for the cosmetic surgery area, as it will look at the regulation of quality and safety of surgery in the private sector. Should the review team find that data collection is poor or that evidence is not passed on promptly, it may result in further action.

'No cancer risk'

It is important to say what the review is not looking at - namely cancer risk. The authorities in France and Britain have already said categorically that the PIP implants do not carry a breast cancer risk.

The MHRA has also said there is no evidence of toxicity from the unauthorised filler. However, it is accepted that once an implant has ruptured it can be more difficult to remove. The French investigation spoke of the risk of inflammation of the breast and the unknown potential risk from the untested silicone filler.

Should a high rupture rate be detected here, the key question will be whether it will lead to the UK following the French decision to recommend the implants are removed.

The Department of Health would not speculate on this so we will have to wait to see the evidence of the review.

Although this announcement means a further period of uncertainty for many women, the speed of the review should mean that they will have clearer answers about the safety of the implants within a matter of a week or so.

In the meantime, the advice from surgeons is that women with PIP implants should make an appointment with the surgeon who treated them.

Last week the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was adamant that there was no need for the routine removal of the banned PIP breast implants.

That remains his position, but it is now dependent on the results of a review of safety data.

Fergus Walsh Article written by Fergus Walsh Fergus Walsh Medical correspondent

Ebola trial volunteer immunised

A trial of an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus has begun in Oxford.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 5.

    Happy to see an evidence review ... just as long as the women who have chosen to do this too themselves understand that they paid to have them put in and choose the cheap option and will have to pay for it to be sorted out just like buying the cheapo version of anything.... It is not the rest of the tax paying public to pay to have there cosmetic surgery sorted out!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    The implants done in the private sector should be “corrected” in the private sector and not with NHS resources. However, NHS resources may usefully be put to providing psychiatric treatment for people who so stupid and superficial they believe their life would be improved by changing the shape their breasts.

  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    Should the review team find that data collection is poor or that evidence is not passed on promptly, it may result in further action. Meanwhile, thousands of Swedish women, & many more worldwide, have substandard breast implants from French-based company PIP. These women have now been urged to surgically remove their implants by French authorities.

  • rate this

    Comment number 20.

    Some 5,000 implants from now bankrupt company PIP (Poly Implant Prothèse), have already been sold in Sweden. Gert Bruse, Swedish Medical Products Agency, said implants were sold at 9 different clinics in Sweden. Sweden banned implants in March 2010 when it was discovered substandard silicone gel was causing many implants to burst. Recommended: Swedish women who had the implant get them removed.

  • rate this

    Comment number 8.

    To continue...if you feel so strongly do you also believe that people who have surgery to correct de formatives they may also need to have there heads 'looked at'. It is completely wrong & unacceptable to tar everybody with the same brush. Also I suggest if you have any future comments you think a little bit more before you post them because there will be many women, such as myself, who are..tbc


Comments 5 of 31



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.