Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:51:53.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign body reaction to polymethylsiloxane gel (Bioplastique™) after vocal fold augmentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

P S Randhawa ,
A D Ramsay  and
J S Rubin
P S Randhawa
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear HospitalLondon, UK
A D Ramsay
Affiliation:
Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital, London, UK
J S Rubin*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear HospitalLondon, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr J Rubin, Lead Clinician, Voice Disorders Unit, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, 330 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8DA, UK. Fax: +44 (0)207 915 1388 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Statement of problem:

The consequences of vocal fold paralysis include voice change, airway problems and difficulty swallowing. Medialisation procedures using injected material have been used for many decades, with varying outcomes, mainly secondary to lifespan, tissue reaction or migration. Newer materials have recently become clinically available which are easier to manage and supposedly less likely to elicit foreign body reaction.

Method of study:

Case report.

Results:

We report a case of foreign body reaction and possible migration of polymethylsiloxane gel (Bioplastique™), one such material, after vocal fold injection. To our knowledge, this is the second such case described.

Conclusions:

This case highlights the fact that the risk of foreign body reaction and migration is still present for this material, albeit low. We also highlight the fact that, although this material can cause foreign body reactions and may possibly migrate, it is removable by microlaryngoscopy via the microflap technique, with vocal improvement.

Keywords

Vocal Cord ParalysisOtorhinolaryngological Surgical ProceduresLarynxBioplastiqueForeign Body Reaction
Type
Clinical Record
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 122 , Issue 7 , July 2008 , pp. 750 - 753
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ersek, RA, Gregory, SR, Salisbury, AV. Bioplastique at 6 years: clinical outcome studies. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1570–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Rokade, AV, Mathews, J, Reddy, KT. Tissue augmentation using Bioplastique® as a treatment of leakage around Provox® 2 voice prosthesis. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:80–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Tjandra, JJ, Lim, JF, Hiscock, R, Rajendra, P. Injectable silicone biomaterial for faecal incontinence caused by internal anal sphincter dysfunction is effective. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:2138–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Alves, CB, Loughran, S, MacGregor, FB, Dey, JI, Bowie, LJ. Bioplastique medialisation therapy improves the quality of life in terminally ill patients with vocal cord palsy. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:387–91Google Scholar
5 Bihari, A, Meszaros, K, Remenyi, A, Lichtenberger, G. Voice quality improvement after management of unilateral vocal cord paralysis with different techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:1115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Hamilton, DW, Sachidananda, R, Carding, PN, Wilson, JA. Bioplastique™ injection laryngoplasty: voice performance outcome. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:472–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Dewan, PA, Byard, RW. Histological response to injected Polytef and Bioplastique in a rat model. Br J Urol 1994;73:370–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Nijhuis, PH, van den Bogaard, TEP, Daemen, MJ, Baeten, CG. Perianal injection of polydimethylsiloxane (Bioplastique implants) paste in the treatment of soiling: pilot study in rats to determine migratory tendency and locoregional reaction. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:624–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Baijens, L, Speyer, R, Linssen, M, Ceulen, R, Manni, JJ. Rejection of injectable silicone ‘Bioplastique’ used for vocal fold augmentation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; Jan 9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Rajkumar, K, Khalil, HS, Elloy, M, Sheffield, E, Baldwin, DL. Histopathological changes in the human larynx following expanded polytetrafluroethylene (Gore-Tex®) implantation. BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders 2005;5:1–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Rudolph, CM, Soyer, HP, Schuller-Petrovic, S, Kerl, H. Foreign body granulomas due to injectable aesthetic microimplants. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23:113–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Lewy, RB, Millet, D. Immediate local tissue reactions to Telfon vocal cord implants. Laryngoscope 1978;90:281–6Google Scholar
13 Stone, JW, Godfrey, EA. Human larynx injected with Telfon paste. Histological study of innervation and tissue reaction. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;86:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Boedts, K, Roels, H, Kluyskens, P. Laryngeal tissue responses to Teflon. Arch Otolaryngol 1967;86:562–7Google Scholar
15 Tanna, N, Zalkind, D, Glade, RS, Bielamowicz, SA. Foreign body reaction to calcium hydroxylapatite vocal fold augmentation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:1379–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Dewan, PA, Hoebeke, P, Ehall, H, Chow, CW, Edwards, GA, Terlet, J. Migration of particulate silicone after ureteric injection of silicone. Br J Urol 2000;85:1–2Google Scholar
17 Lackgren, G, Wahlin, N, Stenberg, A. Endoscopic treatment of children with vesico-ureteric reflux. Acta Paediatr Suppl 1999;88:62–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Ossoff, RH, Koriwchak, MJ, Netterville, JL, Duncavage, JA. Difficulties in endoscopic removal of Teflon granulations in the vocal fold. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102:405–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar