Abstract：
BACKGROUND: There has been a rising trend in the use of silicone breast implants for breast reconstructions after breast cancer treatment, as well as in the aesthetic breast procedures. A cluster of non-specific symptoms related to the presence of silicone implant has been called breast implant illness (BII). However, there are no strict criteria of BII which would specifically define this term. The increasing interest in BII among patients and physicians urges verifying own cases of \"on-demand\" explantations.
METHODS: In this paper, we discussed a case of a patient with initial BII diagnosis, after breast reconstruction, and reviewed the literature on the BII symptoms and aetiology. A decision for aesthetic revision, not explantation, was made as the diagnosis of BII was questioned, and somatisation due to dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result of breast reconstruction was diagnosed.
RESULTS: Improving aesthetics by implant exchange and contralateral mastopexy caused a full recovery from patient\'s symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our case, we point on the fact that BII diagnosis in patients after breast reconstruction is challenging. We suggest that while considering such a diagnosis and further proceedings, e.g. explantation, especially in patients after breast reconstruction, some exclusion criteria should be considered. Dissatisfaction with the result of the surgery can also lead to somatisation and the presence of real clinical symptoms, which should not be confused with the possible autoimmune reaction to silicone particles.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
METHODS: In this paper, we discussed a case of a patient with initial BII diagnosis, after breast reconstruction, and reviewed the literature on the BII symptoms and aetiology. A decision for aesthetic revision, not explantation, was made as the diagnosis of BII was questioned, and somatisation due to dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result of breast reconstruction was diagnosed.
RESULTS: Improving aesthetics by implant exchange and contralateral mastopexy caused a full recovery from patient\'s symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our case, we point on the fact that BII diagnosis in patients after breast reconstruction is challenging. We suggest that while considering such a diagnosis and further proceedings, e.g. explantation, especially in patients after breast reconstruction, some exclusion criteria should be considered. Dissatisfaction with the result of the surgery can also lead to somatisation and the presence of real clinical symptoms, which should not be confused with the possible autoimmune reaction to silicone particles.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
摘要：
背景：在乳腺癌治疗后使用硅胶乳房植入物进行乳房重建的趋势一直在上升，以及在美学乳房程序。与硅酮植入物的存在相关的一系列非特异性症状被称为乳房植入物疾病(BII)。然而,BII没有严格的标准来具体定义这个术语。患者和医生对BII的兴趣与日俱增，敦促验证自己的“按需”解释病例。
方法：在本文中，我们讨论了一个初步诊断为BII的病人，乳房重建后，并回顾了有关BII症状和病因的文献。美学修正的决定，不是外植体，是在对BII的诊断提出质疑时做出的，并诊断出由于对乳房重建的美学结果不满意而导致的躯体化。
结果：通过更换植入物和对侧乳房固定术改善美观，使患者症状完全恢复。
结论：根据我们的案例，我们指出,乳房再造后患者的BII诊断具有挑战性.我们建议在考虑这种诊断和进一步诉讼的同时，例如，外植体，尤其是乳房重建后的患者，应考虑一些排除标准.对手术结果的不满意也会导致躯体化和真实临床症状的存在，这不应与对有机硅颗粒的可能的自身免疫反应相混淆。
方法：本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一定程度的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
方法：在本文中，我们讨论了一个初步诊断为BII的病人，乳房重建后，并回顾了有关BII症状和病因的文献。美学修正的决定，不是外植体，是在对BII的诊断提出质疑时做出的，并诊断出由于对乳房重建的美学结果不满意而导致的躯体化。
结果：通过更换植入物和对侧乳房固定术改善美观，使患者症状完全恢复。
结论：根据我们的案例，我们指出,乳房再造后患者的BII诊断具有挑战性.我们建议在考虑这种诊断和进一步诉讼的同时，例如，外植体，尤其是乳房重建后的患者，应考虑一些排除标准.对手术结果的不满意也会导致躯体化和真实临床症状的存在，这不应与对有机硅颗粒的可能的自身免疫反应相混淆。
方法：本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一定程度的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
