This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ira Finegold, MD
New York, NY

JAMA. 1994;272(4):271-272.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I had hoped that the CSA's report on silicone gel breast implants¹ would have presented a cogent summary of this controversial topic. However, the chemistry of silicone is presented in great detail and amounts to about 25% of this report, while a discussion of clinical observations is virtually entirely omitted.

Although double-blinded prospective controlled studies are the desired criterion standard, currently none is available on this subject. However, there are a number of clinical reports in the literature that cannot be completely dismissed because they do not meet these criteria. Dr Kessler and colleagues have correctly noted in their Commentary² that there are significant doubts as to the safety of gel breast implants. The fact that 2111 reports concerning implants have been filed by patients and clinicians from January 1992 to October 1993 also should not be ignored.

Even if the CSA dismisses these reports, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?