Comparison of the Explantation Rate of Poly Implant Proth  se, Allergan, and P  rouse XXXX Breast Implants within the First Four Years after Reconstructive Surgery before the Poly Implant Proth  se Alert by the French Regulatory Authority.

@entity1 @entity0 @entity5 @entity281 @entity1346
Background. In March 2010, ANSM (Agence Nationale de S  curit   du Medicament), the French Medical Regulatory Authority, withdrew Poly Implant Proth  se (PIP) breast implants from the market due to the use of non-medical-grade @entity1346 gel. The aim of this study was to compare the removal rate (and reasons thereof) of breast implants produced by different manufacturers before the ANSM alert. Materials and Methods. From October 2006 to January 2010, 652 @entity1 received 944 implants after @entity0 surgery at the Gustave Roussy @entity5 Center, Paris (France). The complications and removal rates of the different implant brands used (PIP, Allergan, and P  rouse) were evaluated and compared. Results. PIP implants represented 50.6% of the used implants, Allergan 33.4%, and P  rouse 16%. The main reasons for implant removal were @entity1 dissatisfaction due to aesthetic problems (43.2%), @entity281 (22.2%), and capsular contracture (13.6%). Two years after implantation, 82% of P  rouse implants, 79% of PIP, and 79% of Allergan were still in situ. There was no difference in removal rate among implant brands. Conclusion. Before the ANSM alert concerning the higher rupture rate of PIP breast implants, our implant removal rate did not predict PIP implant failure related to the use of nonapproved @entity1346 gel.
