We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Analysis of Facial Implants for Bacterial Biofilm Formation Using Scanning Electron Microscopy

Thomas J. Walker, MD1,2; Dean M. Toriumi, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago
2currently in private practice, Atlanta, Georgia
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(4):299-304. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.0279.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Alloplastic implants are widely used in facial plastic surgery, both in rhinoplasty and nonrhinoplasty procedures. Implant infection and extrusion are significant concerns of such implants after placement. Bacterial biofilms have been previously implicated in chronic wound infections, particularly in the presence of foreign bodies, such as alloplastic facial implants. Owing to their structural composition, biofilms are resistant to treatment with conventional antibiotics, and implant removal is frequently the only option.

Objective  To evaluate explanted alloplastic facial implants for the presence or absence of bacterial biofilm using scanning electron microscopy.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Facial implants explanted by a single surgeon were analyzed for biofilm formation between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013. Of 7 facial implants, 4 consisted of silicone, and 3 were porous polyethylene. Six of the 7 were nasal dorsal implants, and 1 silicone implant was removed from the midface. Nonexplanted fresh silicone and porous polyethylene implants were each used as a control.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Scanning electron microscopy images were analyzed by an electron microscopist masked to the clinical history and implant type. The presence of biofilm formation was graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe.

Results  A total of 7 patients with previously placed alloplastic facial implants at an outside institution underwent revision rhinoplasty and removal of facial implants. All porous polyethylene implants showed biofilm formation to various degrees. Furthermore, all porous polyethylene implants had at least some areas of severe biofilm formation. One of the 3 porous polyethylene implants demonstrated severe biofilm formation on the entire implant, and the other 2 porous polyethylene implants showed areas of mild and severe biofilm formation. The only 2 implants without any evidence of biofilm were silicone implants. Of the other 2 silicone implants, 1 demonstrated no biofilm formation in 1 area and severe biofilm formation in another area, whereas the other had areas of moderate and severe biofilm formation.

Conclusions and Relevance  Five of 7 explanted facial implants showed at least some degree of biofilm formation. All implants with rougher surfaces, namely, porous polyethylene implants, demonstrated biofilm formation to a severe degree. Those with smoother surfaces, namely, silicone implants, were the only ones on which biofilm formation was either absent or less severe. Therefore, the suspicion that biofilms can form on facial implants is established through this investigation.

Level of Evidence  NA.

Figures in this Article


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Representative Scanning Electron Microscopy Images of Facial Implant Samples

A, Nasal dorsal silicone implant from patient 1 (original magnification ×500). B, Nasal dorsal porous polyethylene implant from patient 2 (original magnification ×1200). Information about patients 1 and 2 are given in the Table.

Graphic Jump Location




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections