The History of Breast Implants: A Holistic Perspective on Cosmetic Innovation and Health
Introduction
Breast implants have a fascinating history, tracing back over a century as innovations evolved to meet the changing desires and needs of women worldwide. I know when I decided to get implants, I had no idea the intricate history surrounding these medical devices. There is growing awareness around the impact breast implants can have on overall health, particularly for those with autoimmune concerns or those striving for a balanced, holistic lifestyle. In this article, we’ll explore the untold history of breast implants and health risks, from early surgical experiments to modern-day procedures, and consider how these choices can affect health and well-being throughout history and today.
At WellNurtured, I’m here to support you in making informed choices with a whole-body approach, and a free consultation is a great starting point to discuss your health goals holistically.
How Long Have Women Been Getting Breast Implants?
This is a great question and one of the very first questions I asked when I realized my implants were affecting my health. For those questioning the safety of implants, it’s essential to examine the history. Enhancing breast size is an age-old desire that goes back long before the creation of modern breast implants. Let’s take a chronological look at how breast augmentation has evolved and the key milestones in implant history.
1895
One of the first breast augmentations was performed by surgeon Vincenz Czerny, who moved a benign fat-based tumor, or lipoma, into a patient’s breast to correct asymmetry after a breast cancer diagnosis. Yes, you read that right. A fatty tumor was put inside the breast.
Early 1900 – 1914
During this period, women attempted to enhance their breast size by injecting paraffin oil directly into the breasts. This method led to severe complications, including chronic inflammation, hard lumps, embolisms, and tissue death.
1911
Reports of complications from paraffin injections escalated, with issues ranging from ulceration and infections to more severe consequences, like necrosis and pulmonary embolisms. Many women suffered terribly from these early practices.
1915-1943
Various objects and substances were tested as injectables into breasts, including rubber, mineral oil, peanut oil, glass balls, and even ox cartilage. Infections and severe tissue reactions were common, highlighting the risks of unregulated augmentation methods.
1940s-1950s
Silicone injections emerged in Japan, where industrial-grade liquid silicone was injected to create fuller breasts. Unfortunately, silicone complications became apparent by the late 1960s, leading to further investigations into its safety, though many studies remained inconclusive.
The Modern Era: The Creation of Silicone and Saline Implants
1962
The first generation of commercially produced silicone breast implants emerged in 1962, created by Dow Corning. Silicone implants, originally designed from technology developed during WWII for waterproofing, quickly gained popularity in the U.S. and Europe.
1964
Laboratories Arion developed the first saline-filled implants. Although initially less popular, saline implants offered a softer feel and gained traction, particularly in the U.S., in the following decades.
1968
Silicone implants made with polyurethane foam, to create sponge-like surfaces were introduced. This creation led to less capsular contraction but ultimately led to the beginning of BIA-ALCL, a cancer caused by breast implants.
1970’s
Thinner shell, and less thick gel filler. These were known as the 2nd generation of breast implants. It was found that these created more of an increased silicone bleed-through and rupture rates, despite the more natural feel.
1976
The FDA began regulating breast implants. However, silicone implants remained on the market despite insufficient safety studies. (To date, there has never been a comprehensive safety study lasting more than 5 years.)
The Legal Landscape and Health Concerns
1980’s
Thicker, multilayered shell that was reinforced with silica to help reduce rupture rates and to try and prevent silicone gel bleed, this was the 3rd generation of breast implants. In the later 80’s shell texturing was beginning; this was the 4th generation of implants. These implants are afflicted by the BIA-ALCL cancer that was first reported in 1997.
1984
First major silicone breast implant lawsuit won. Maria Stern won $211,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages from Dow Corning. At trial, documents were introduced as evidence suggesting that the company was aware of high rupture rates and the bleed of silicone implants. This case went largely unnoticed.
1988
FDA classified silicone-gel breast implants as Class III medical devices. (These are medical devices that have a high risk to the patient.) At this time, the FDA began to demand safety information from implant manufacturers. Silicone implants remained on market despite lack of safety studies. The same year, FDA’s Plastic Surgery Advisory Committee found in sufficient evidence of a health risk to warrant banning silicone breast implants.
1990s
The 1990s brought the “fifth-generation” implants, featuring a cohesive gel and textured outer shell for added stability. Known as “gummy bear implants,” these designs reduced leakage risks, but implant recipients reported potential links to autoimmune symptoms, sparking the emergence of Breast Implant Illness (BII). These concerns became central to discussions about the history of breast implants and health risks.
1991
Brenda Toole won $5.4 million settlement based on the claim that breast implants increased her risk of developing autoimmune disease and cancer.
Mariann Hopkins received $7.3 million for her connective-tissue disease linked to ruptured implants.
Pamela Johnson awarded $25 million after finding that her ruptured implants were linked to her symptoms.
1992
Dow Corning, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bioplasty all left silicone breast implant business.
1993
12,359 individual lawsuits had been filed against Dow Corning
1994
Class action lawsuit followed success of individual lawsuits. Initially defendants Dow Corning, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter International, and 3M agreed to $4.75 million settlement. However, Dow Corning files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, reducing settlement to $3.4 billion with remaining defendants. Women were now able to file claims from settlement.
1995
Europe sold implants filled with soybean oil, thought to be safer than silicone, resulting in a high rupture rate. These ruptures resulted in toxic oxidation of products caused by inflammatory reactions. It was also found that the soybean oil was linked to cancer and birth defects. These were withdrawn from the market in 2000.
1997
Production began for the PIP (Poly Implant Prothese), French implants. These became extremely popular through marketing strategy. The FDA refused to approve the PIP implants in 2000 because of poor manufacturing practices. It was found around the year 2010 that these implants were being filled with industrial grad silicone gel instead of medical grade. The effects reached over 400,000 women, many who have become ill and struggled to afford removal. This company filed bankruptcy and the CEO was arrested and found liable to the obvious fraud. In 2011, it was recommended that all women with PIP breast implants remove them immediately.
Ongoing Innovations and Health Challenges
2010
The sixth-generation breast implants emerged, with more resistant shells and varied gel consistencies to further reduce rupture and leakage.
2011
The FDA alerted the public of a possible association between textured breast implants and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), a rare type of cancer linked to specific implant surfaces.
2019
The European Commission on Health concluded a causal relationship between BIA-ALCL and certain textured implants. As a result, textured implants were banned in several regions, emphasizing the potential health risks for users.
Health Implications of Breast Implants: What You Need to Know
With a rise in holistic health awareness, more women today are evaluating how breast implants might impact overall well-being, particularly concerning autoimmune conditions. Research linking implants to autoimmune responses remains inconclusive, but reports of Breast Implant Illness (BII) symptoms like fatigue, brain fog, and joint pain have led to further investigations.
Key concerns for holistic health include:
- Breast Implant Illness (BII): An array of symptoms, including cognitive impairment and joint pain, has been anecdotally linked to implants.
- Autoimmune Reactions: Some studies indicate a potential immune response in predisposed individuals, adding a layer of risk for those with autoimmune sensitivities.
- Capsular Contracture: Scar tissue forming around the implant can lead to pain and distortion, often requiring further surgery.
- Rupture and Leakage: While advances have reduced the risks, ruptures are still possible, especially as implants age, potentially requiring removal.
These risks underscore the importance of making informed, holistic choices about breast implants. Many women today are also opting for “explant” procedures—implant removals—to minimize potential health impacts. Fat grafting and non-invasive enhancements are becoming popular options, offering alternatives that align with a balanced, whole-body approach.
Seeking a Balanced Choice
Deciding to get breast implants, or to remove them, is highly personal and involves considering a variety of factors you should know—medical, aesthetic, and lifestyle-related. At WellNurtured, we advocate for an approach that emphasizes whole-body well-being, informed decision-making, and self-empowerment. If you’re considering breast implants or are concerned about the history of breast implants and health risks, reach out for a free introductory consultation to explore options that honor your body’s balance and well-being.
Conclusion
The history of breast implants and health risks reflects both innovation and caution, with evolving materials and improved safety standards continuing to shape this popular procedure. But for those prioritizing a holistic approach to health, including concerns around autoimmune function, making an informed decision requires understanding not only the aesthetic benefits but also potential impacts on the body’s systems that you should know.
At WellNurtured, we believe in empowering individuals to make choices that align with their health and wellness goals. If you’re considering breast implants or are concerned about their effects on holistic health, reach out for a free introductory consultation to explore options that honor your body’s balance and well-being.
References
- Peters W, Fornasier V. Complications from injectable materials used for breast augmentation. Can J Plast Surg.2009;17(3):89-96. doi:10.1177/229255030901700305
- Schleiter K. Silicone Breast Implant Litigation. AMA J Ethics. 2010;12(5):389-394. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2010.12.5.hlaw1-1005
- Santanelli di Pompeo F, Paolini G, Firmani G, Sorotos M. History of breast implants: Back to the future. JPRAS Open. 2022;32:166-177. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2022.02.004
- Brown SL, Pennello G, Berg WA, Soo MS, Middleton MS. Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(5):996-1003.
- Deva AK, Adams WP, Vickery K. The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg.2013;132(5):1319-1328. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a3c105
- Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(3):695-705. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001032
- McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Murphy DK, Walker PS. The safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(5):569-580. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3180320063
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Breast implants – Certain breast implants have been associated with the development of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Updated August 20, 2020. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants
- Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Silicone gel-filled breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases. N Engl J Med. 2007;336(6):443-449. doi:10.1056/NEJM199702063360602
- European Commission on Health. Opinion on the safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Published 2019. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu
