BREAST implants banned amid fears they posed a cancer risk are not toxic and do not cause any long-term health problems, but are twice as likely to leak as other brands, according to a report.
A study of the French-made Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP) implants concluded they were "substandard", though the gel used to fill them was not toxic or carcinogenic.
As many as 4000 women in Scotland may have been given the implants, which contained non-medical grade silicone intended for use in mattresses, after undergoing private breast enlargement surgery. The brand was never used in the NHS north of the Border.
Many patients condemned the report, commissioned by the UK Department of Health and led by NHS medical director Professor Sir Bruce Keogh.
Trisha Devine, spokeswoman for campaign group PIP Implants Scotland, said: "We were hoping for a fresh insight. Instead we get a rehashed version of the previous Government report which does little to calm the fears of the victims. It states the implants are defective and says they're likely to rupture, spilling industrial silicone into our bodies.
"How are those of us with PIP implants supposed to feel about that? Does the Government expect us to be relieved?"
The report said if the devices rupture and leak they could cause irritation to surrounding tissue but would have no lasting harmful effects.
However, it also found the implants had a 15%-30% chance of rupturing within 10 years of surgery, compared to a 10%-14% average rupture rate among other implant brands.
Mr Keogh said: "Tests on different batches of PIP implants have been carried out in the UK, France and Australia according to international standards.
"Those tests have shown the implants are not toxic and therefore we do not believe they are a threat to the long-term health of women who have PIP implants.
"We have, however, found these implants are substandard when compared to other implants, and they are more likely to rupture.
"We would advise that women who have symptoms of a rupture, for example tenderness, soreness or lumpiness, should speak to their surgeon or GP."
Surgery firms faced a backlash this year as many refused to cover the cost of former patients who wanted to have implants removed over safety fears after UK medical products regulator MHRA banned them.
Most providers then backed down, with some offering replacement surgery with alternative implants at a discount.
Fazel Fatah, president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, said: "We agree with the report findings that anxiety is a form of health risk. It is reasonable for women to have the right to opt for removal."
Patrick McGuire, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, a Glasgow-based firm representing PIP patients, said: "The Government appears to be satisfied with a substandard medical product that's been shown to rupture and leak mattress silicone into women's bodies. That they are not issuing an immediate removal and replacement policy to all healthcare providers following today's report is alarming."
Ms Devine added: "There's still no direct pressure on clinics to help their patients. The best the Government can do is say clinics 'should support' women with PIP implant concerns.
"The current situation is an utter disgrace. Some clinics are offering to scan, remove and replace for free and others are charging for everything."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We welcome this report and would encourage all healthcare providers to note the findings, and to continue to provide the appropriate healthcare package for their patients. NHS Scotland will support any woman whose healthcare provider is no longer operating or is unable to offer the appropriate care."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article