CBS/AP/ February 11, 2009, 5:44 PM

FDA Lifts Silicone Breast Implant Ban

The government ended a 14-year virtual ban on silicone-gel breast implants Friday despite lingering safety questions, making the devices available to tens of thousands of women who have clamored for them.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the implants for women 22 and older, or those undergoing breast reconstruction surgery, but warned that patients probably would need at least one additional operation because the implants don't last a lifetime.

The decision clears implants made by two California manufacturers, Inamed Corp. — now part of Allergan Inc. — and Mentor Corp.

"There is reasonable assurance that Allergan and Mentor silicone-gel breast implants are safe and effective, and there is adequate information to enable women to make informed decisions," said Dr. Daniel Schultz, FDA's medical device chief.

Mentor called the decision a "historic moment." Allergan said it created new options for women.

Are silicone implants different now than they were in the early '90s? CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports that the manufacturing process is thought to be improved. But due to possible unnoticeable leakage, doctors are recommending periodic MRIs for patients.

However, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, a longtime opponent, called the implants "the most defective medical device FDA has ever approved."

The twin approvals came with conditions, including a requirement that the companies complete 10-year studies on women who have already received the implants to study leaks, as well as begin new decade-long studies of the safety of the devices in 40,000 women.

Shultz called the implants "one of the most extensively studied medical devices. We now have a good understanding of what complications can occur and at what rates."

The FDA warned that the implants are not without risk and that women may not immediately know if their implants break and silicone begins oozing into their breasts. That means women will need regular MRI exams for the rest of their lives to catch those so-called "silent ruptures."

Patients will have to be given special brochures that explain these risks.

The FDA decision opens the implants to much wider use by women seeking to reconstruct or augment their breasts. Since 1992, the silicone implants had been available only as part of research studies.

Silicone-gel breast implants first went on the market in 1962, before the FDA required proof that all medical devices be safe and effective. Thirty years later, they were banned amid concerns about their safety.

At the time, there were worries about a possible connection to a variety of diseases, including cancer and lupus. Alarming cases of ruptures added to the concern.

Since then, most studies have failed to find a link between silicone breast implants and disease.

The rupture issue persists: The implants do not last a lifetime, and eventually they must be removed or replaced, according to the FDA. A 2000 Institute of Medicine report found rupture rates as high as 77 percent.


1/2

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
7 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
miamimia-2009 says:
I work for a plastic surgeon who has participated in the FDA silicone-gel studies for several years. I can tell you that, at least at my office, we take the studies very seriously, following up with patients and making sure to send accurate information. The doctor that I work for very much prefers the silicone gel implants versus the saline implants for several reasons, and I must say that patients whom have had both implants (which is usually due to problems like rupture or leakage of the saline implants)much prefer the silicone-gel filled implants. In fact, I have saline filled implants because I did not qualify for the silicone implants at the time, and I am seriously considering changing to silicone (as much as I do not want to go through the pain of surgery again)! I do not understand why peole are posting such negative comments when they most likely have no real understanding of the subject. In the few years that I have worked in the plastic surgery field, of the few problems I have seen, (like capsular contracture, ruptures, and leaks) many more have been associated with saline implants than with the silicone gel implants. I've read information from the FDA as well as from the implant companies and I am confident that anyone deciding on silicone gel implants is making a safe decision (as far as the implants are concerned).
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bushrocks1 says:
Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed but maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
dalenadubois says:
GO TO: www.livejournal.com (search for Dalena DuBois) AND READ WHAT I HAVE POSTED THERE ABOUT - KILLER SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS -- I have been reporting to the FDA for 5 years now about my problems with breast implants - and they have not investigated or contacted me.. I was part of a PMA study AND THEY ARE NOT TRACKING ME... the doctors and implant companies LIE, COMMIT FRAUD, AND FALSIFY THE STUDY RESULTS... THIS IS A FACT.. they have not been tracking me and I am supposedly part of a PMA study.... I NOW HAVE BREAST CANCER - caused by the SILICONE BREAST IMPLANT SHELL -- please read what I have posted on my BREAST IMPLANT SAGA...
I have the KILLER BREAST IMPLANTS FOR SALE ON EBAY.COM -- the headline reads.. KILLER IMPLANTS FOR SALE, used 2001 to 2006 - YOU CAN GET THE LINK TO THE EBAY AUCTION AT MY WEBSITE.
http://www.dalenadubois.com
IMPLANTS KILL! this is a fact...
I HAVE A MISSION OF GETTING IMPLANTS BANNED IN THE USA AND WORLDWIDE IN 2007 .... watch it HAPPEN!
www.livejournal.com (search for Dalena DuBois
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
dsought says:
Shame on the FDA. I agree with themooniac 100%. What's going on here is pretty easy to see.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gingern-2009 says:
For many women this will be pleasant info. For me ( a 31 year old woman who just had 'the new' silicone implants removed due to a growing list of very troublesome symptoms, I'm afraid this news is very misleading to many women out there considering them. Such as, it is the implant manufacturers who provided the only study info to the FDA, plastic surgeons have been funded by the manufacturers to perform these studies and just because there is no significant evidence that silicone is not related, there is no evidence that it is not! Maybe that's where the burden of proof should lie. I encourage all women looking into getting implants to perform their internet searches as 'implant problems' or 'silicone toxicity' instead of 'breast implants', and keep in mind their are sites out their that are very pro implant that remove any mention of negative experiences due to silicone to try and help hide the existing catastrophe.
The medical field is about to receive a large increase in 'syndromes', unfortunately because of this sort of 'lift' on the ban, many MD's won't even consider the thought that the silicone could be the problem, no matter how obvious.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
grumpas says:
I don't completely understand why women think they have to have implants anyway! I could never see the need to try and improve on what I was given! That wouldn't be me! I can see where such things might be necessary for cancer patients or reconstructive surgery. Maybe even if you were too big or too small and looked like a boy! But, for the most part that is it! What is so terrific about having them when everyone knows they are fake? It kind of reminds me of the days when I was in my early teens! Girls used to try and fill there bra with kleenex trying to get some! If I were a man it wouldn't be a turn on knowing that breast wasn't hers but you were stroking a saline or whatever implant! I guess that is just a woman's perspective on the subject!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
themooniac says:
The companies & plastic surgeons making these ridiculous silicon implants must have had a huge lobbying effort pushing this thru. Why else would the FDA approve this when silicone implants have proven dangerous in the past??? $$$$$, cha-ching is the only answer.
reply