Questions still remain over the PIP breast implant saga, experts said today, despite the sentencing of the boss of the French firm at the centre of the recent scandal.
Jean-Claude Mas, the founder of the PIP company, has been jailed for four years for fraud and fined €75,000 - £63,000 - by a court in Marseille.
PIP's sale of faulty implants caused a global health scare which affected around 300,000 women in 65 countries.
The company was found to have used sub-standard silicone gel - rather than medical-grade silicone - with the result that many implants ruptured.
Apart from Mas, four other former PIP executives were convicted and given lesser sentences. With more than 5,000 women registered as plaintiffs in the case, and about 300 lawyers, the trial was considered one of the biggest in French legal history.
Despite the recent ruling by another French court that TUV, the German body responsible for inspecting PIP, was liable to compensate women with PIP implants, significant questions remain
But UK legal experts say the judgment leaves many questions still unanswered, particularly who is liable for the cost of any revisions or removals that are carried out.
Richard Matthews, head of product liability at law firm, Eversheds, told BBH: "The sentencing of Jean-Claude Mas represents a significant milestone in the PIP breast implant saga, which began with the discovery of discarded containers of industrial silicone by French health inspectors attending PIP’s factory in March 2010. Having narrowly evaded a subsequent raid by French police, Monsieur Mas now finally faces justice. However, the story is far from over.
"Despite the recent ruling by another French court that TUV, the German body responsible for inspecting PIP, was liable to compensate women with PIP implants, significant questions remain.
“Several reports, including one commissioned by the Department of Health in England, have indicated that PIP implant material was neither toxic nor carcinogenic. Even if the implants are shown to be sub-standard, it remains unclear who should bear the cost of compensating the many thousands of women who received them.
“PIP itself went into liquidation in 2010, and many of the clinics which conducted implant surgery have also fallen by the wayside in subsequent years. In the UK, group litigation addressing these questions is ongoing before the High Court, with a trial not expected until mid-2014.”
Even if the implants are shown to be sub-standard, it remains unclear who should bear the cost of compensating the many thousands of women who received them
Throughout the trial, Mas denied the silicone used was harmful, while all but one of the other defendants said they had not been aware of the risks.
When an implant ruptures, the silicone gel filling can leak into the body. Some women will not notice anything at all, and there is no evidence of an increased cancer risk.
However, it can result in the formation of scar tissue that can change the shape and feel of the breast. The gel can be an irritant, causing pain and inflammation. It can also be more difficult to remove an implant once it has ruptured.
