Content uploaded by Daghan Isik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daghan Isik on Oct 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The association between silicone implants
and both antibodies and autoimmune diseases
Mehmet Bekerecioglu & Ahmet Mesut Onat &
Mustafa Tercan & Hakan Buyukhatipoglu &
Metin Karakok & Daghan Isik & Omer Bulut
Received: 15 October 2006 /Revised: 18 May 2007 /Accepted: 21 May 2007
#
Clinical Rheumatology 2007
Abstract Silicones are widely used materials in many fields
of medicine and largely are believed to be biologically inert.
However, some investigators have reported that silicone
implants are associated with an increased incidence of auto-
immune disorders. In this study, we evaluated the capsular
tissue of silicone implants and the sera of imp lant patients
and controls for antisilicone antibodies and nonspecific im-
munoglobulins (IgG , IgA, IgM, and IgE). Our study group
included 15 patients (eight men and seven women) under-
going reconstructive procedures for burn scars, in whom we
used silicone implants, and 15 sex-matched controls under-
going reconstructive surgery for burn scars without using
silicone implants. By immunofluorescence, we discovered
strong capsular binding of IgG and weak capsular binding of
IgM; antisilicone antibody levels were significantly higher in
capsular tissue than elsewhere. Serum IgE also was higher in
patient vs control subject sera. In conclusion, silicone ma-
terials do lead to an immune response consisting of anti-
silicone antibodies most evident immediately adjacent to the
implant itself.
Keywords Antisilicone antibody
.
Capsular tissue
.
Immunoglobulins
.
Silicone
Introduction
Currently, silicones are used commonly in medicine. An
increasing number of patients receive silicone implants
during the course of plastic surgery. These implants may
cause foreign body reactions and local or systemic symp-
toms. Silicone imp lants have been accused of precipitating
rheumatic disorders and nervous and pulmonary system
dysfunction by means of auto-antibodies and abnormalities
in cellular immunity [1]. Several researchers have investigat-
edtheroleofsiliconeinimmunity[2, 3]. Studies have iden-
tified several kinds of antibodies (antinuclear antibodies,
rheumatoid factor, anticardiolipin antibodies IgG and IgM,
anti-Ro and anti-La) in silicone-implant patients [4, 5]and
higher levels of certain other antibodies (antisilicone anti-
bodies) [6]. In this study, we examined both for nonspecific
immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA, IgM, and IgE) and for specific
antisilicone antibodies in blood and capsular tissue samples.
The aim of this study was to identify specific and nonspecific
Ig expression in capsular tissue and in the sera of patients
with silicone implant expanders.
Clin Rheumatol
DOI 10.1007/s10067-007-0659-1
M. Bekerecioglu
:
D. Isik
:
O. Bulut
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
Gaziantep University School of Medicine,
Gaziantep, Turkey
A. M. Onat
Department of Rheumatology,
Gaziantep University School of Medicine,
Gaziantep, Turkey
H. Buyukhatipoglu (*)
Department of Internal Medicine,
Gaziantep University School of Medicine,
Gaziantep, Turkey
e-mail: buyukhatip@yahoo.com
M. Karakok
Department of Pathology,
Gaziantep University School of Medicine,
Gaziantep, Turkey
M. Tercan
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,
Haydarpasa Numune Training Hospital,
Istanbul, Turkey
Materials and methods
We included 15 patients, eight men and seven women, who
had undergone reconstructive operative procedures between
January 1997 and December 2002. All patients had burn scar
contractures. Study and control groups consisted of healthy
individuals, except for their burn scars. Baseline serum Ig A,
G, M, and E levels were measured for all subjects. Anyone
who had a history of allergic or rheumatological diseases or
high baseline levels of any of the antibodies of interest was
excluded. Tissue expanders were placed adjacent to normal
tissue. Mean tissue expander volume was 250 cc (70–450 cc).
Only one tissue expander was used per patient. The expanders
were left in place from 8 to 12 weeks (mean 9.3 weeks).
Evaluation of capsular tissue
We collected capsular tissue samples in patients with silicone
tissue expanders at the expansion ends of healthy tissue. Five-
micron frozen sections of capsular tissue were stained for
IgG, IgA, IgM, and IgE by immunofluorescence (Dako Lab,
Denmark). Capsular tissue samples were homogenized and
then incubated for 4 h with rabbit antibodies to human IgG.
Silicone capsule antibodies were expressed in optical density
units. Antisilicone antibodies in capsular tissue were detected
by ELISA (Sigma BioSciences, St. Louis).
Evaluation of serum
Blood samples were studied for immunoglobulins (Pharmacia
and Upjohn Diagnostics, Freiburg, Germany). Silicone anti-
bodies were identified by ELISA (Beckman Instruments,
Fullerton) [7].
Control group
A control group consisted of 15 patients (eight men and seven
women) undergoing reconstructive surgery for burn scar
contractures without using any silicone products. They had
no rheumatologic or immunological disease. Blood samples
were collected as part of the routine preoperative assessment.
Tissue samples were collected during the surgical procedure.
Statistical analysis
Between-group analyses were performed using Mann–
Whitney U tests. Spearman’s co rrelation tests were con-
ducted to investigate for bivariate correlations. Data were
analyzed using SPSS software (version 13.0). All analyses
were two-tailed, and p<0.05 was set as the threshold for
statistical significance.
Results
Patients with tissue expanders vs controls
a. Capsular tissue
Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Capsular
tissues exhibited stro ng immunofluorescence for IgG and
limited immunofluorescence for IgM, but there was no
detectable binding at all for IgA or IgE (Table 1, Fig. 1). In
Table 1 Demographic characteristics and antibody results in silicone-implant patients
Patients Serum Tissue Silicon antibody
Biochemical analysis Immunofluorescence technique ELISA
a
Number Age/sex IgG g/l IgM g/l Ig E IU/ml IgA g/l Ig G Ig M Ig E IgA Serum Tissue
1 25/M 8.57 0.92 175.4 ↑ 1.42 ++ + ––0.012 0.310
2 32/M 9.63 0.56 107.2 ↑ 3.66 ++ + ––0.022 0.620
3 17/F 8.03 2.44 220.4 ↑ 1.15 ++ + ––0.032 0.256
4 42/M 12.46 1.51 170.9 ↑ 2.77 ++ + ––0.009 0.608
5 12/F 10.03 3.00 141.5 ↑ 4.20 ++ + ––0.005 0.762
6 54/M 17.11 2.97 238.1 ↑ 1.02 ++ + ––0.032 0.437
7 14/F 9.58 1.46 344.3 ↑ 3.97 ++ + ––0.043 0.651
8 4/F 13.05 0.73 224.8 ↑ 2.17 ++ + ––0.065 0.873
9 15/M 14.70 2.65 218.5 ↑ 1.83 ++ + ––0.053 0.597
10 33/M 9.80 3.05 162.7 ↑ 4.49 ++ + ––0.029 0.486
11 30/F 10.71 0.93 229.1 ↑ 1.23 ++ + ––0.071 0.629
12 28/M 9.93 1.16 256.4 ↑ 1.11 ++ + ––0.048 0.695
13 21/M 12.04 1.41 167.3 ↑ 3.09 ++ + ––0.026 0.572
14 14/F 9.57 2.38 182.3 ↑ 2.61 ++ + ––0.081 0.773
15 35/F 9.98 1.53 242.6 ↑ 1.79 ++ + ––0.046 0.698
M Male, F female, ++ strong positive immunofluorescence, + weak positive immunofluorescence
a
Values of IgG binding to silicone capsular tissue expressed in optical density units
Clin Rheumatol
the figure, strong immunofluorescence is demarcated with
two ‘plus’ signs and weak immunofluorescence with a single
plus sign. Levels of capsular antisilicone antibodies were
significantly higher in silicone-implant patients (0.59±0.16
vs 0.030±0.012; p<0.001). Control patient characteristics
are presented in Table 2. Capsular tissues in control patients
did not exhibit any immunofluorescence.
b. Serum
Only IgE levels were significantly higher in the sera of
silicone-implant patients vs controls (205.3±56.9 vs 32.4±
8.7; p<0.001). Levels of other immunoglobulins were in
the normal range. Antisilicone antibodies were slightly
higher in silicone-implant patients; however, the difference
between means was not statistically significant (0.038±
0.022 vs 0.032±0.018; p =0.24). Bivariate correlations
between serum IgE and antisil icone antibodies, both in
serum and capsular tissue, were not statistically significant.
Discussion
Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is the simplest silicone
structure in medical usage. Silicone is highly biocompati-
ble, nontoxic, nonallergic, and resistant to biodegradation.
Silicones can simulate different soft tissues as a liquid, gel,
or rubber by varying the length and degree of cross-linking
of the PDMS chains.
After a silicone implant is placed, a tissue response occurs.
This reaction generally is limited to a mild foreign-body
reaction, which then is followed by encapsulation. Capsular
tissue forms around any nondegradable material that is too
large to be engulfed by macrophages and that is so inert that it
causes no more than a local foreign body reaction [8].
This study is different from prior studies in that we
examined for the presence of antisilicone antibodies and
nonspecific immunoglobulins in the capsular tissue, itself,
something which has never been studied before. In several
animal models, silicone gel has been discovered to increase
antigenicity. There have been a few reports demonstrating
antibodies to silicone in human serum: Pastor et al. [4]and
Wolf et al. [6] found increased levels of antisilicone anti-
bodies in the majority of their patients but did not identify a
relationship between these antibody levels and autoimmune
disease. Goldblum et al. [9] detected increased IgG levels
Fig. 1 IgG staining of capsular tissue by immunofluorescence (×400
magnification) 183×116 mm (72×72 DPI)
Table 2 Demographic characteristics and antibody results in controls
Controls Serum Tissue Silicon antibody
Biochemical analysis Immunofluorescence technique ELISA
a
Number Age/sex IgG g/l IgM g/l Ig E IU/ml IgA g/l Ig G Ig M Ig E IgA Serum Tissue
1 5/F 11.41 2.71 23.12 1.19 –– ––0.019 0.027
2 40/M 9.01 1.44 43.28 1.07 –– ––0.012 0.015
3 19/M 9.37 1.71 41.76 2.26 –– ––0.022 0.031
4 24/M 13.81 0.83 32.78 1.20 –– ––0.015 0.010
5 32/F 12.07 0.96 33.45 1.81 –– ––0.017 0.020
6 11/F 11.72 1.47 54.27 2.75 –– ––0.030 0.028
7 14/F 9.87 1.73 21.38 1.39 –– ––0.036 0.041
8 23/M 13.46 1.62 35.67 3.01 –– ––0.035 0.047
9 15/M 11.65 2.06 31.29 1.93 –– ––0.032 0.024
10 30/M 12.08 1.14 23.65 1.32 –– ––0.031 0.033
11 29/F 11.56 0.94 26.33 1.70 –– ––0.054 0.055
12 13/F 12.65 3.51 28.91 2.62 –– ––0.039 0.046
13 15/M 14.13 1.35 34.68 1.78 –– ––0.036 0.029
14 35/M 9.69 0.78 27.72 1.14 –– ––0.018 0.027
15 16/F 10.59 2.56 29.43 2.06 –– ––0.014 0.018
M Male, F female
a
Values of IgG binding to silicone capsular tissue expressed in optical density units
Clin Rheumatol
against silicone medical implants [10]. However, these stud-
ies evaluated serum samples only.
In the present study, we identified significantly increased
antisilicone antibodies in capsular tissue. We also discovered
IgG and IgM antibodies, by IFA, in capsular tissues in silicone-
implant patients. The levels of serum antisilicone antibody
levels were slightly higher in implant patients vs controls, but
this increase was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, if the
sample size had been greater, the difference might have been
significant. Evans et al. [11] reported that normal individuals
have basal antisilicone antibody levels; however , they also
reported that antisilicone antibody levels were significantly
higher in their breast-implant patients. Microscopic evidence
of silicone has been discovered in other bodily tissues in
breast-implant patients [12]. Furthermore, Iannello [13]
identified silicone compounds in the blood and liver of those
with silicone implants. Combining the results of our study and
previous studies, we might conclude that silicone particles,
albeit in very small quantities, scatter throughout body tissues,
leading the human body to produce specific antibodies. This
body reaction seems to be related to the amount of silicone
exposed in blood, body tissues, and the capsule. We identified
a significantly greater react ion in capsular tissue than
elsewhere. On the other hand, we discovered elevated serum
IgE levels possibly because of a foreign body reaction. There
was no correlation between serum IgE levels and the levels of
capsular or serum antisilicone antibodies.
Whether silicone implants lead to the development of
rheumatologic or immunologic disorders remains unknown.
Several authors have speculated about the likelihood of a
relationship. Karlson [14] reported on the activation of the
immune system in female silicone-implant recipients. In
other studies, several types of auto-antibodies have been
found to be increased [9, 15, 16], and a single study
identified an increased prevalence of rheumatic conditions in
females with breast implants [17]. On the other hand, Peters
et al. [18] identified no increase in antinuclear antibodies in
those with silicone implants.
To summarize, taken together, the previous reports and
the results of our study suggest that silicone implants cause a
negligible and nonspecific foreign body reaction. However,
we feel that these antibodies against the silicone implants
have little or no clinical importance. To determine any
causative association between silicone implants and autoim-
mune disease, furt her long-term studies are warranted.
References
1. Peters W (1995) Silicone breast implants and autoimmune con-
nective tissue disease. Ann Plast Surg 34:103–109
2. Vojdani A, Brautbar N, Campbell AW (1994) Antibody to silicone
and native macromolecules in women w ith silicone breast
implants. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 16:497–523
3. Yoshida SH, Chang CC, Teuber SS et al (1993) Silicon and
silicone: theoretical and clinical implications of breast implants.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 17:3–18
4. Pastor JC, Puenta B, Telleria J et al (2001) Antisilicone antibodies
in patients with silicone implants for retinal detachment surgery.
Ophthalmic Res 33:87–90
5. De Jong WH, Goldhoorn CA, Kallewaard M et al (2002) Study to
determine the presence of antipolymer antibodies in a group of
Dutch women with a silicone breast implant. Clin Exp Rheumatol
20:151–160
6. Wolf LE, Lappe M, Peterson RD, et al (1993) Human immune
response to polydimethylsiloxane (silicone): screening studies in a
breast implant population. FASEB J 7:1265–1268
7. Tenenbaum SA, Rice JC, Espinoza LR, et al (1997) Use of
antipolymer antibody assay in recipients of silicone breast implants.
Lancet 349:449–454
8. McCarty JG (ed) (1990) Esthetic breast surgery. In: Plastic surgery.
Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 3886–3892
9. Goldblum RM, Pelley RP, O’Donell AA, et al (1992) Antibodies
to silicone elastomers and reactions to ventriculoperitoneal shunts.
Lancet 340:510–513
10. White KL Jr, Klykken PC (1998) The non-specific binding of
immunoglobulins to silicone implant materials: the lack of a
detectable silicone specific antibody. Immunol Invest 27:221–235
11. Evans GR, Slezak S, Rieters M et al (1994) Silicon tissue assays
in nonaugmented cadaveric patients: is there a baseline level?
Plast Reconstr Surg 93:1117–1122
12. Sergott TJ, Limoli JP, Baldwin CM et al (1986) Human adjuvant
disease, possible autoimmune disease after silicone implantation:
a review of the literature, case studies, and speculation for the
future. Plast Reconstr Surg 78:104–114
13. Iannello S, Belfiore F (1998) Silicone breast p rosthesis and
rheumatoid arthritis: a new systemic disease: siliconosis. A case
report and a critical review of the literature. Minerva Med 89:117–119
14. Karlson EW, Lee IM, Cook NR, et al (2001) Serologic evaluation
of women exposed to breast implants. J Rheumatol 28:1523–1530
15. Teuber SS, Rowley MJ, Yoshida SH et al (1993) Anti-collagen
autoantibodies are found in women with silicone breast implants.
J Autoimmun 6:367–377
16. Karlson EW, Hankinson SE, Liang MH et al (1999) Association
of silicone breast implants with immunologic abnormalities: a
prospective study. Am J Med 106:11–19
17. Jensen B, Bliddal H, Kjoller K, et al (2001) Rheumatic mani-
festations in danish women with silicone breast implants. Clin
Rheumatol 20:345–352
18. Peters W, Keystone E, Snow K, et al (1994) Is there a relationship
between autoantibodies and silicone gel implants? Ann Plast Surg
32:1–5
Clin Rheumatol