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?

Cornelia J. Baines, MD
University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario

JAMA. 1994;272(4):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.

—The recent CSA report on the silicone gel— filled breast implant saga provided much useful information.¹ It rightly pointed out that the FDA hearings in 1992 were characterized by an excess of anecdotal reports. The descriptive case series that were presented demonstrated an association of implants with disease, but certainly did not establish a causal relationship. It seemed to be forgotten that women without implants also get sick.

What was troubling about the CSA report was a hint of selection bias. Yes, there has been a "barrier function" introduced to diminish diffusion through the elastomer envelope. What is not mentioned is that this barrier function was introduced relatively recently in the history of implant manufacturing. Thus, many women are wearing implants lacking this barrier function. Second, no mention was made of the potential problems that may be specific to foam-covered implants. The report states that there . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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