The Use of GoreTex in Reconstruction of the Inframammary Fold

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard A. Tobin ◽  
George T. Goffas

Inferior displacement of breast implants is a relatively common complication of breast augmentation. The authors describe the use of GoreTex® in the repair of a case that failed after a previous attempt at correction. Possible mechanisms that might lead to this complication are reviewed along with a discussion of the anatomy of the region of the inframammary fold

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-196
Author(s):  
Ted Eisenberg

Tuberous breasts are a congenital anomaly in which the breasts fail to develop normally. This abnormality may include hypoplasia, a tubular appearance, a higher inframammary fold (IMF), and sometimes a herniated nipple-areolar complex. Correction of tuberous breast deformity (TBD) is traditionally done with a 1-stage breast augmentation with radial scoring of the constricted breast tissue and/or the lowering of the IMF. An alternative 2-stage approach first uses a tissue expander to correct the deformity; the expander is later replaced with a permanent breast implant. Sixteen patients are presented in which a 1-stage correction of TBD was successfully accomplished with saline implants acting as tissue expanders. In all cases, the expansion remedied the deformity without the need for radial scoring of the breast tissue or lowering of the IMF. This approach has not been reported in the literature. Sixteen women (32 breasts) were treated, with TBD ranging from mild to severe. All patients had a breast augmentation with round, smooth saline implants placed through an IMF incision in the dual plane (partially subpectoral and partially submammary). Implants ranged in size from 225 cc to 675 cc. The IMF was never lowered and the breast parenchyma was never radially scored. Three patients had asymmetry requiring breast implants of different sizes, and one had a circumareolar mastopexy to repair a herniated areolar complex. Representative case examples are provided. The average follow-up time was 9 months. All deformities were corrected, and the patients expressed satisfaction with their results. There were no occurrences of hematoma, infection, capsular contracture, or malposition. This review has shown that saline breast implants alone, with their inherent expansion capability, can correct TBD without the increased morbidity associated with radial scoring and lowering the IMF. For patients who choose saline implants, this single-stage, less invasive surgical approach can provide a good aesthetic result.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 2513826X2110289
Author(s):  
Vitali Bagirov

Breast augmentation is the most frequently performed cosmetic surgery in the United States, with approximately 279,000 patients every year. The so-called double-bubble effect (DBE) is a common complication in breast augmentation. This complication is characterized by folds running along the lower pole of the breast, forming distinct bubble-like protrusions above and below the fold. Factors that increase the risk of DBE include bulbous breasts and a large native breast volume. There is evidence that polyurethane-coated (PU) implants may help to reduce the risk of DBE. We describe here the case of a 47-year old patient for whom DBE has recurred in each of 4 tandem breast surgeries. PU implants ultimately appeared to prevent the DBE, leading to an aesthetically satisfying treatment result for the patient. This case adds weigh to the growing body of evidence that supports the use of polyurethane implants to prevent DBE.


2021 ◽  
pp. 074880682110327
Author(s):  
Arian Mowlavi ◽  
Bryce Bash ◽  
Shea Skenderian ◽  
Zachary Sin

Superior displacement of implants is a common complication in the early postoperative period following breast augmentation surgery. Postoperative breast bands are used during the first 4 weeks to optimize breast implant position following breast augmentation and reconstructive procedures. Although currently available breast bands are effective in maintaining implants in an inferior position, they have been observed to irritate the armpit region. We hypothesized that a modified breast band geometry with cut outs to accommodate the armpit region would provide equal maintenance of desired implant position while providing improved postoperative comfort. Forty patients who underwent breast augmentation and/or reconstruction were randomly assigned to receive either the traditional breast band or the modified cut out designed breast band following surgery for 4 weeks. Patients rated their breast bands on a 1 to 10 scale regarding (1) comfort, (2) appearance, and (3) overall satisfaction at their routine postoperative visits at 1, 2, and 4 weeks following surgery. The modified breast band scored higher for all factors at 1, 2, and 4 weeks following surgery. The traditional band demonstrated decreasing scores for comfort and overall satisfaction when compared at 4 weeks versus 1 week. There was no change in the modified breast band scores for comfort, appearance, nor overall satisfaction over the same time period. This study of 40 patients found that the modified band provides equally effective maintenance of implants in a desired position without compromising comfort and appearance. Patients who used the modified band had a better experience with the band comfort, appearance, and overall satisfaction in comparison to the traditional band. The higher ratings for the cut out band for comfort, appearance, and overall satisfaction were consistent from week 1 to 4. In contrast, the traditional band not only scored lower in comfort, appearance, and overall satisfaction compared to the modified band but also demonstrated significant decrease in the patients’ ratings for comfort and overall satisfaction for the traditional band from week 1 to 4. This study supports the conclusion that a modified cut out breast band design provides an equally effective maintenance of implants in a desired position without compromising comfort, appearance, and overall satisfaction when compared to the traditional band.


2002 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 223-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Peters

The present review traces the evolution of breast implants over the past 50 years. During the early years (from 1951 to 1962), a number of different sponges were used for breast augmentation. The first of these was Ivalon, a polyvinyl alcohol sponge. Other sponges were introduced subsequently, including Etheron (a poly-ether sponge popularized by Dr Paule Regnault in Montreal) and Polystan (fabric tapes that were wound into a ball). Subsequently, polyethylene strips enclosed in a fabric or polyethylene casing were also used for breast augmentation. All of these materials had similar outcomes. Although the initial results were encouraging, within one year of augmentation, breasts became very firm and lost over 25% of their volume. This was due to capsular contracture, a process that would lead to the collapse of the sponge and would continue to plague plastic surgeons and their patients for the next 50 years. In 1963, Cronin and Gerow introduced the silicone gel ‘natural feel’ implant, which revolutionized breast augmentation surgery. Approximately 10 companies have manufactured many types of silicone gel breast implants over the years. They obtained their raw materials for gels and shells from a similar number of other companies that entered and left the market at intervals. Many of the suppliers and manufactures changed their names and ownership over the years, and most of the companies no longer exist. No formal process of United States Food and Drug Administration premarket testing was in effect until 1988. There have been three generations of gel implants and a number of other lesser variations. First-generation implants (1963 to 1972) had a thick gel and a thick wall. They have generally remained intact over the years. Second-generation implants (1973 to the mid-1980s) had a thin gel and a thin wall. They have tended to disrupt over time. Third-generation implants (mid-1980s to 1992) had a thick wall and a thick gel. Except for those made by Surgitek, these implants remain intact. The breast implant business was competitive and companies introduced changes such as softer gels; barrier low-bleed shells; greater or lesser shell thickness; surface texturing; different sizes, contours and shapes; and multiple lumens in search of better aesthetics. Ultimately, more than 240 styles and 8300 models of silicone gel breast implants were manufactured in the United States alone. Inflatable breast implants were introduced in Toulons, France in 1965 (the Simaplast implant). There have been three main eras of inflatable implants: seamed, high-temperature vulcanized and room temperature vulcanized implants. In 1973, spontaneous deflation rates of 76% to 88% over three years were reported for many types of inflatable implants. Because of this, most plastic surgeons abandoned their use. From 1963 until the moratorium on gel implants (January 6, 1992), about 95% of all breast implants inserted were silicone gel filled. Only 5% were saline filled. Since the moratorium, this ratio has been reversed and 95% of all implants have been saline-filled, with only 5% being gel filled. Polyurethane-coated (PU) silicone gel implants were introduced in 1968. Over the next 20 years, they were shown to reduce the prevalence of capsular contracture to 2% to 3%. Other forms of surface texturing (Biocell, Siltex, multistructured implant) also appear to reduce capsular contracture with gel implants, but the reduction has been much less dramatic than that seen with PU implants. Contoured (anatomical) shaping appears to have advantages in some patients with gel implants. No such advantage has been seen for texturing or shaping with saline-filled implants. The story of gel implants has culminated in the largest class action lawsuit in medical history, with US$4.2 billion being awarded to women with silicone gel implants. During the past decade, there has been a tremendous amount of research on the reaction of a woman's body to gel implants. A plethora of studies have demonstrated that silicone gel implants are not associated with the development of any medical diseases. Silicone gel-filled implants have therefore been approved for use under Health Canada's Special Access Program. Silicone gel-filled implants may now be used in certain patients in whom they would provide advantages over saline implants. Silicone gel implants have not been approved for unrestricted general use. The evolution of breast implants occupies the past half century. It has been a stormy course, with many exciting advances and many bitter disappointments. The universe of breast implants is large and the variation among the implants is substantial. The purpose of the present review is to trace the evolution of breast implants over the past 50 years.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Catherine Watson Genna

Breast surgery increases the risk for difficulties with milk production and breastfeeding. Research on lactation outcomes of breast augmentation with implants is reassuring, but reveals a significant risk of low milk production that varies with the type of surgery and position of the implants. Understanding the potential effects of breast implants on breastfeeding can help lactation professionals optimize outcomes for families with a history of augmentation mammaplasty.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document