Periprosthetic breast capsules and immunophenotypes of inflammatory cells

Background Silicone gel-containing breast implants have been widely used for aesthetic and reconstructive mammoplasty. The development of a periprosthetic capsule is considered a local reparative process against the breast implant in which a variety of inflammatory cells may appear. Nevertheless, only few reports have evaluated the immunophenotypes of those inflammatory cells. Herein, we aim to provide more information in this regard evaluating 40 patients with breast implants. Methods We studied the immunophenotype of the inflammatory cells of capsular implants using antibodies against lymphocytes (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20, CD45, and CD30) and histiocytes (CD68). Percentages of CD3 and CD20 positive cells were compared using the unpaired Student'st test. Fisher's test was also used to compare Baker grades by implant type, implant profile, and location and the presence of inflammatory cells by implant type. Results The associations between Baker grades and implant type and location were statistically nonsignificant (p00.42 in both cases). However, the use of low profile implants was significantly associated (p00.002) with a higher proportion of Baker grades 3 and 4. We found evidence of inflammation in 92.5 % of all implant capsules, with a statistically significant (p00.036) higher proportion in textured breast implants. T cells predominated over B cells. Textured implants elicited a more marked response to T cells than smooth implants, with a similar proportion of helper and cytotoxic T cells. Textured implants showed statistically significant higher percentages of CD3 positive cells than smooth implants. Percentages of CD20 positive cells were similar in textured and smooth implants. Conclusions These results suggest that textured breast implants might induce a stronger local T cell immune response. Our findings could shed some light to understand the association of silicone breast implants and some cases of anaplastic large cell lymphomas. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic study. © The Author(s) 2012.