Silicone Breast Implants: Safe, With Caveats
Reviewed By
Rating
Silicone Breast Implants: Safe, With Caveats
Our Review Summary
400,000 women have breast implants each year and use is rising. This story was about where we are today with silicone. The use is on the rise but have we really settled the question about safety? The article kind of skirts the scary issues like the autoimmune disease and focuses on the common complications (which are much higher than perhaps people recognized). The story missed a chance to dig into the data and to help women really understand the issue more deeply. Instead, we hear a lot from one plastic surgeon who presents his own point of view.
We would have liked more data, less opinion.
Why This Matters
The safety of silicone breast implants is an emotionally charged issue, whether for reconstruction or augmentation; specific facts and clear options help women make better decisions about such a significant surgery.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The article sidesteps any issues related to costs of breast implants or the remedies for failures, a glaring omission in light of frequent complications and adverse outcomes.
Not Applicable
Not applicable. This was about safety. No good way to quantify benefits.
Not Satisfactory
The story discussed common problems, but was silent on:
- details on the rare autoimmune disease
- More specific statistics, such as “40 to 70 percent of reconstruction patients requiring reoperations during the first 8 to 10 years after they received their implants”
Half the story on harms just isn’t good enough in this case.
Not Satisfactory
Missing is reference to the actual FDA- published information on post-approval studies describing:
- low follow-up rates,
- study limitations,
- a higher frequency of Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL).
Conflicting implications of silicone leakage are anecdotal, rather than evidence-based.
Satisfactory
It would be difficult to oversell the caveats in this story; the article presented dramatic, significant concerns.
Satisfactory
Two independent experts were quoted. (Sidney Wolfe’s name was misspelled.) However, the article could have benefited from:
- quoting more than one practicing physician (Why was plastic surgeon Schulman chosen?)
- indicating whether there was conflict of interest.
- linking to the FDA article, for consumer access.
But the story meets the minimum standard for this criterion.
Not Satisfactory
Saline implants were mentioned briefly but not discussed in any detail. No other options, such as choosing to avoid the procedure with its risks, or fat relocation, were discussed.
Satisfactory
Beginning with a clear description of silicone breast implants…banned in 1992, back five years ago with a concurrent FDA evaluation process…the article does an excellent job of establishing availability.
Satisfactory
One focus of the story was the June FDA report – the new angle.
Satisfactory
It’s clear that the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
Total Score: 5 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like