European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 22–26 | Cite as

Revision operations after silicone gel breast implantation: a retrospective study

Original Paper

Abstract

The present study discusses the number of reoperations in 10 years after silicone gel breast implantation in a cosmetically augmented group and a reconstructive group. Information was obtained from a total of 185 medical records. The aesthetic group contained 105 patients, the reconstructive group 37; 43 patients were excluded because of insufficient follow-up. The mean number of reoperations in the cosmetic group was 0.72 (SD=1.40); 67 patients had no revisions. In the reconstructive group, the mean number of reoperations was 2.59 (SD=2.03); five patients had no revisions. In the entire group of 142 patients, 72 (50.7%) had only the primary operation, 29 (20.4%) had one revision, and 41 (28.9%) had two or more revisions after breast implantation in the ten-year follow-up period (p=0.00). Reconstructive patients have a higher risk of reoperation than cosmetic patients. The most common complication in both groups was capsular contracture.

Keywords

Silicone Breast Implantation Revision 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. K. Jansen for his support in the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Myra Kim H et al (2002) Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Two-year results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(7):2265–2274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown SL, Penello G (2002) Replacement surgery and silicone gel breast implant rupture: self-report by women after mammoplasty. J Women’s Health Gend Based Med 11(3):255–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clough KB, O’Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruction: I. Implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(7):1702–1709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen BE, Biggs TM, Cronin ED et al (1997) Assessment and longevity of the silicone gel breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 99(6):1597–1601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collis N, Sharpe DT (2000) Silicone gel-filled breast implant integrity: a retrospective review of 478 consecutively explanted implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(6):1979–1985; Discussion 1986–1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Embrey M, Adams EE, Cunningham B et al (1991) Factors associated with breast implant rupture: pilot of a retrospective analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg 23(3):207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O’Fallon WM et al (1997) Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 336(10):677–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hammond DC, Hidalgo D, Slavin S et al (1999) Revising the unsatisfactory breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(1):277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q et al (1995) The fate of breast implants: a critical analysis of complications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(7):1521–1533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(6):2202–2216; Discussion 2217–2218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kjöller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH et al (2002) Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 48(3):229–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malata CM, Feldberg L, Coleman DJ et al (1997) Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? Three-year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 50(2):99–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marotta JS, Goldberg EP, Habal MB et al (2002) Silicone gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prostheses and meta-analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg 49:227–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Netscher DT, Sharma S, Thornby J et al (1997) Aesthetic outcome of breast implant removal in 85 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 100(1):206–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters W, Pritzker K, Smith D et al (1998) Capsular calcification associated with silicone breast implants: incidence, determinants, and characterization. Ann Plast Surg 41(4):348–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohrich RJ, Hartley W, Brown S (2003) Incidence of breast and chest wall asymmetry in breast augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(4):1513–1519; Discussion 1520–1523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tebbetts JB (2004) “Out points” criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(5):1258–1262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Breast Implant Registry. See: http://www.ibir.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic SurgeryUniversity Medical Center GrongingenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations