scholarly journals Is the shear wave sonographic elastography correlated with pain after breast augmentation with silicone implants an indication of inflammatory activity? A preliminary report

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 217-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paweł Rzymski ◽  
Mikołaj Kubasik ◽  
Michał Gaca ◽  
Tomasz Opala
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Preliminary Report ◽  
Inflammatory Activity ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Sonographic Elastography

Augmentation Mastopexy With Surgical Excision of the Lower Pole to Avoid Waterfall Deformity: A Surgical Technique and Nipple Areolar Complex Case Series

2020 ◽  
pp. 229255032093366
Author(s):  
Colin P. White ◽  
Brian D. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Capsular Contracture ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Complex Case ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Lower Pole ◽  
Areolar Complex ◽  
Augmentation Mastopexy

Purpose of this article is to demonstrate a way of avoiding the waterfall deformity in augmentation mastopexy patients. We will show a case series of results and explain how this technique gives satisfying aesthetic results for patients seeking breast augmentation who also require mastopexy. We will show how addressing the breast parenchyma on the lower pole via direct excision can give reliable results and avoids the waterfall deformity. The surgical technique used by the senior author combines the principles of breast augmentation, mastopexy, and breast reduction. We apply these principles during the initial single operation. Our goal is to achieve the best anatomical results for the patient. We describe 1538 consecutive patients whom underwent single-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy. All implants were submuscular with 12% being saline and 88% were silicone implants. Vertical mastopexies were performed in 8% and wise pattern incisions were used in 92%. There were no life-threatening complications such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and so on. Tissue-related complications included wound infection (1%) and hematomas (1%). Implant-related complications included malposition or implant displacement 9% and capsular contracture 1%. Aesthetic complications included dystopia of NAC (4%) and volume asymmetries (10%). Revision surgery was tissue related (2%), implant related (3%), and aesthetic related (10%). There were no cases of waterfall deformity seen in the cohort. In conclusion, we believe that the technique detailed here is easy to do, uses principles already known of breast augmentation and reduction and gives consistent results with low reoperation rates.

BAMBI: Bilateral Augmentation Mammoplasty by Injection; Breast Augmentation Using Autologous Fat Transplantation: The Controversy and Personal Experience

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-188
Author(s):  
Riad Roomi
Keyword(s):  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Augmentation Mammoplasty ◽  
Autologous Fat ◽  
Autologous Fat Transplantation ◽  
Small Breast ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Indispensable Tool

Introduction: Breast augmentation is one of the most sought after cosmetic surgical procedures in developed countries. It is accepted that augmentation by silicone implants is the gold standard. However, it is also acknowledged that this method is not without problems and complications in the best hands. Historical review shows that many materials were used to augment the breast. Needless to say, the majority of those have failed, and some with catastrophic consequences. Autologous fat, the subject of this article, was introduced in 1987. In most practices, no other alternative to implants is being offered to prospective patients. It is undeniably true that there is a group of patients who are not candidates for augmentation by implants. Among this group are patients who categorically refuse implants for one reason or another. Objective: In our expanding and rapidly advancing specialty, the ability to offer an alternative treatment for any presenting problem is an indispensable tool of our profession. However, when it comes to the small breast problem, the majority of surgeons are unable or unwilling to offer women who seek breast augmentation any alternative to implants. The objective of this article is to prompt an interest for a forum to look at this method more objectively to establish whether it can be approved as an alternative to implants. Materials and Methods: Review of the literature.

scholarly journals Silicone Implant Versus Silicone Implant Assisted by Stromal Enriched Lipograft Breast Augmentation: A Prospective Comparative Study

Medicines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Aris Sterodimas
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Fat Grafting ◽  
Silicone Implant ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Age Range

Background: Implant-assisted breast augmentation is among the most performed surgeries performed by plastic surgeons today. This prospective study evaluated the patient satisfaction and complication rates using high-profile round silicone implant alone (traditional breast augmentation) Group A versus the high-profile round silicone implant assisted with stromal enriched lipograft (composite breast augmentation) Group B. Methods: A total of 50 female patient candidates to undergo breast augmentation between January to September 2017 were randomly assigned to either group. The periareolar technique for breast augmentation and the subfascial plane were used in both groups for the insertion of the high-profile round silicone implants. The stromal enriched lipograft (SEL) was used in Group B for the preparation of the autologous fat grafting to the breast. The satisfaction of each patient with body appearance following breast augmentation was rated using an already published scale of 1–5. The rate of complications was analysed. Results: AS performed all the surgeries. In Group A, the age range was between 19 and 48 years (mean of 22.5 years). In Group B, the age range was between 20 and 47 years (mean of 24.1 years). The average BMI of Group A was 24 m/kg2 and 23 m/kg2 of Group B. Patient satisfaction meta-analysis for Group A and B at 12 months shows that patients in Group B expressed a satisfaction that is superior when compared to Group A patients. The ability to camouflage the implant could explain the higher satisfaction rates in Group B. The rate of complications appears similar in both groups. Conclusions: Composite breast augmentation using a combination of round high-profile implants and SEL in breast augmentation can achieve a higher patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome as compared to the round high-profile breast augmentation alone. The technique is safe, simple and fast with low complication rates. Large multicentre, controlled, prospective studies need to be performed to further confirm the favourable results that were observed in this study.

scholarly journals Capsular Flap for Implant Coverage in Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women With Previous Breast Augmentation

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2513826X1982879
Author(s):  
Miguel Sabino Neto ◽  
Luiz Henrique Gebrim
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Breast Implants ◽  
Immediate Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Capsular Flap ◽  
Nipple Sparing Mastectomy ◽  
Nipple Sparing

An increased incidence of breast cancer has been observed in women, including in those with silicone breast implants. We describe here the use of a flap made of fibrous capsule to complete the coverage of breast implants in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, who previously had undergone breast augmentation with silicone implants. All patients underwent ipsilateral therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer risk reduction and breast symmetrization. The capsular flap was successfully used in 16 patients. No postoperative complications occurred. This is a simple and safe technique and an additional option for this procedure.

Silicone gel in biological systems

1992 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 650-651
Author(s):  
William B. Greene ◽  
Lyle G. Walsh ◽  
Richard M. Silver ◽  
Joann Allen ◽  
John C. Maize
Keyword(s):  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Latency Period ◽  
Breast Implants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tissue Reaction ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Silicone Breast Implants ◽  
Silicone Gel ◽  
Silica Filler

Electron probe microanalysis of biopsies from two patients who had received silicone gel breast implants has revealed silicon (Si) in macrophages in an arthritic finger joint synovium (Fig. 1) and in a sclerodermatous skin lesion as well as in the fibrous capsule surrounding the implants in both patients (Fig. 2). The silastic envelope has been reported to be semipermeable with substances passing freely into and out of the implant. The polymer usually contains silica filler with a particle size of 30μm to impart added firmness, however, these sharp pointed crystals have not been fully characterized by Electron Microscopy. Silicone has been thought to be relatively inert, eliciting little or no tissue reaction. The substance has been injected or surgically placed into the human body as liquid, joints or in the form of breast augmentation prostheses. Recent reports have indicated that there is more than sufficient reason to change our thinking regarding this chemical and it's significance in biological reactions. There are 100,000 patients who undergo breast augmentation each year in the United States alone with over one million reported silicone implants. One clinical group reported that 4.4% of all new scleroderma patients had silicone breast implants. The patients reported in the study had implants from 2 to 21 years duration. The latency period may mean that scleroderma will increase parallel to the increase in breast augmentation over the last decade.

Breast Augmentation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J. Culbertson ◽  
William P. Adams Jr
Keyword(s):  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Capsular Contracture ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Aesthetic Result ◽  
Incision Location ◽  
Implant Selection

Breast augmentation is a complicated process that goes far beyond placing an implant in a pocket. The implants and techniques of breast augmentation have undergone significant evolution over the past 50 years, and this is now one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures worldwide. Advancements in shell barrier technology and silicone form stability have improved implant functional characteristics and mechanical properties. Tissue-based planning uses measurable patient characteristics to match an implant to the patient’s tissue for greater control of the aesthetic result while minimizing complications. The realization of three-dimensional modeling systems allows a more sophisticated approach to implant selection and establishment of patient expectations. Specific surgical techniques, including pocket plane and incision location, ensure ideal implant placement. Optimal patient outcomes are achieved by integrating patient education, implant selection with tissue-based planning, refined surgical technique, and detailed postoperative recovery.  This review contains 12 figures, 6 tables, 1 video, and 74 references. Key Words: breast augmentation, breast implants, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, dual plane, capsular contracture, saline implants, silicone implants, tissue-based planning, three-dimensional imaging 

scholarly journals Implants versus Lipograft – Analysis of Long-Term Results after Congenital Breast Asymmetry Procedure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Brebant ◽  
Maximilian Weiherer ◽  
Vivien Noisser ◽  
Stephan Seitz ◽  
Lukas Prantl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Young Group ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Scanning System ◽  
Breast Asymmetry ◽  
Breast Symmetry ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Volume Difference

Congenital breast asymmetry represents a particular challenge to the classical techniques of plastic surgery due to a young group of patients. This study compares traditional breast augmentation using silicone implants to the more innovative lipograft technique regarding long-term results. To achieve this, we not only captured subjective parameters like satisfaction with outcome and symmetry, but also objective parameters such as breast volume and anthropometric measurements. Objective examination was performed manually and by using the Vectra® H2 photogrammetry scanning system. Patients who underwent implant augmentation and lipograft both showed no significant differences in patient´s satisfaction with surgical outcome (p = 0.55) and symmetry (p = 0.69). Furthermore, a breast symmetry of 93 % in both groups was reported. Likewise, no statistically significant volume difference between left and right breast was observed in both groups (p<0.41). However, on average, lipograft patients needed 1.3 procedures more until the desired result was achieved. In contrast, patients treated with implant-based breast augmentation usually need several implant changes during their life. In conclusion, both methods should be considered for patients with congenital breast asymmetry.

scholarly journals Breast implant rupture 37 years after breast augmentation

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Marko Jovic ◽  
Ivan Radosavljevic ◽  
Jovan Mihaljevic ◽  
Jelena Jeremic ◽  
Milan Jovanovic
Keyword(s):  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Histopathological Examination ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Capsular Contracture ◽  
Surrounding Tissue ◽  
Silicone Implants ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Macroscopic Appearance ◽  
Implant Rupture

Introduction Silicone implants have been used ever since the second half of the 20th century. Over that period several generations of implants have been developed that differed in thickness of the shell and viscosity of the silicone gel. Development of these generations of implants was accompanied with different complication rates. The first-generation implants had the lowest tendency to rupture, but were more prone to capsular contracture and calcification formation. Case outline An 81-year-old female patient had her silicone implants placed in 1983. After a chest injury in 2015. on the lateral aspect of the left breast a tumefaction becomes palpable and she complains of pain. She denies any subjective problems before the injury. After pertinent diagnostic procedures and clinical examination, silicone implant rupture was suspected. Surgical findings confirmed ruptures of both implants so that they were extracted, capsulectomy was performed and the surrounding tissue imbibed with silicone removed. Samples were sent for histopathological examination. Conclusion Implant rupture is one of late complications of breast augmentation. The incidence of ruptures has changed with development of newer generations of silicone implants. We believe that our patient had the first-generation silicone implants, knowing the time from their placement to the occurrence of symptoms and macroscopic appearance of the shell after extraction. The fact is that these implants have proved to be very durable, but regardless of the lack of symptoms, current guidelines recommend regular screening for rupture, while possible preventive extraction, particularly in case of so old implants should be considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document