Experimental studies on the biocompatibility and safety of six implantation prosthesis
- VernacularTitle:六种隆乳材料生物相容性和安全性的比较
- Author:
Zhanglin FANG
;
Ying SUN
;
Tingfei XI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Breast implants;
Histocompatibility
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Aesthetics and Cosmetology
2002;0(02):-
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare biocompatibility and safety of six implantation prosthesis. Methods Subcutaneous implantation of crosslinked sodium hyaluronate prosthesis (CSHP), silica gel prosthesis(SGP), non crosslinked sodium hyalurorate prosthesis (NCSHP), carboxy methycel prosthesis (CMCP), hydrophilic polyacrylamide gel prosthesis (HPAGP), injectable hydrophilic polyacrylamide gel (IHPAG) was performed in 12 beagle dogs.Local reaction of surrounding tissues of the transplants were observed with HE and Van Gieson stains after the transplantation at 14, 30 and 90 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. Results The most serious reaction was observed in NCSHP, CMCP and HPAGP, moderate reaction in CSHP and SGP and mild reaction in IHPAG. Van Gieson staining showed that collagenous fibrous capsule around implanted prosthesis was formed from 30 days to 2 years .The component and arrangment of the capsule were different among the defferent prosthesis, but changed with time. Shrinkage of the capsules was found in NCSHP, CMCP and HPAGP, and contraction occurred two years later. The capsules formed by CSHP and SGP had no contraction after two year implantation. IHPAG capsule was still soft and elastic after 2 years. Conclusions SGP is one of the best material for breast enlargement with a good biocompatobility and soft capsule. IHPAG is a new filling material with mild inflammatory reaction and thinner and softer capsule. CSHP should be improved further because its molding effect is not gratified. Both the biocompatibility and molding effect of NCSHP, CMCP and HPAGP are not gratified and further modification is needed.
