Macrolane Boob Jab-- Does it Live Up To the Hype?

Recently, Alice Hart Davis, a London beauty journalist reported on her experience with temporary breast enhancement using Macrolane injectable gel rather than breast implants. The hyaluronic acid gel is made by the makers of Restylane, a popular dermal filler used to smooth facial wrinkles and folds. Though not approved for breast augmentation use in the United States, Macrolane is being used for temporary, conservative breast enhancement in Europe and Japan. The injections are said to offer enhancement up to a cup size and require no anesthesia, incisions or breast implants. The treatments generally take 1-2 hours to administer.

Though initially, Ms. Davis reports being happy with her Macrolane results, as time went by, some issues started to arise-- leading her to eventually refer to the treatment as her "big boob jab disaster."

"...by August, one breast had mysteriously gone rock hard while the other had shrunk to half its size," she reports. "On holiday I resorted to padding out my sundress with a sock, to even them up."

Returning to her surgeon, he assured her the hardening was caused by scar tissue and could be corrected by massage. The unevenness had to be corrected with another injection, one that would have cost her a pretty penny if she been paying for the treatments herself instead of undergoing them for an assignment. Within a few weeks, another lump developed, which required more massage to soften. The second incident prompted her to do a little more research into Macrolane and it's use for breast augmentation.

"I went to Q-Med's official Macrolane website, which states carefully that Macrolane is a type of non-animal hyaluronic acid that has been 'clinically proven and well documented in facial aesthetics for over 10 years with Restylane'. But have they been proven on the breast? That's where things begin to get hazy," she reports. The company's website places most of its stock in a 2006 Japanese study "which found that out of 1,100 people treated for (Macrlolane) breast augmentation, there were no long-lasting side-effects and breasts remained 'soft and natural' for up to 12 months. Q-Med acknowledges that 'longer term follow up would be desirable'."

Aside from issues with hardness and lumps, not all doctors agree on the safety of injecting the gel into the breast. London plastic surgeon Dr. David Ross warns, “I have significant reservations about injecting artificial materials into the substance of the breast,” he says. “While many of the hyaluronic-acid-based materials have been shown to be safe when used around the face and in small volumes, we have to be much more cautious when injecting material in and around the breast. We have to be certain it doesn't interfere with breast screening. Several years down the line, will there be changes, even benign changes? If there is infection or bleeding around the Macrolane, that will cause scarring in the tissue, which again may affect the interpretation of mammography. ”

The article points out that "Macrolane for breasts was approved in the EU on the basis of a study into its use for correcting liposuction deformities, and a currently unfinished study on its use on breasts in 24 people. Neither examined long-term effects, so people who are using it now are guinea pigs. "

Another drawback of the procedure is its cost. Though the price for this temporary treatment is near that of breast implants, breast implants last roughly 10 years or more while Macrolane treatments are temporary, with results lasting a mere 12 to 18 months.

For those of us in the US, Macrolane breast augmentation is not even an option. It has not been approved by the FDA and there are currently no clinical studies to enroll in. If you'd like more information on traditional breast enhancement, Houston breast augmentation specialist Dr. Basu can answer your questions during consultation.