Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 317–319 | Cite as

Implications of Transaxillary Breast Augmentation: Lifetime Probability of Breast Cancer Development and Sentinel Node Mapping Interference

  • Arturo PradoEmail author
  • Patricio Andrades
  • Patricio Leniz
Article

Abstract

After the “fifth-generation” breast implants with ultracohesive silicone gel technology are introduced, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will sooner or later retire the ban on the use of these devices in the United States. When this happens, the plastic surgery community must be prepared to face a massive demand for reoperations to change saline-filled breast implants because cohesive gel devices have the potential to provide a more natural breast shape, to minimize the risk of postoperative rippling, and to provide a greater degree of safety if the implant loses its integrity. Despite these advantages and extensive use throughout the rest of the world during the ban in the United States, silicone implants also have disadvantages. One drawback is that transaxillary breast augmentation with more “rigid” gel-filled implants may produce trauma to the armpit, may interfere with sentinel node mapping for breast cancer treatment, and may have future medicolegal implications.

Keywords

Breast implants Cohesive gel devices Sentinel node mapping Silicone implants Transaxillary breast augmentation Ultracohesive silicone gel technology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Osvaldo Jury and Dr. Susana Benitez were participants in the research and anatomy, and we acknowledge their assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Jakub J, Ebert M, Cantor A, Gardner M, Reintgen D, Dupont E, Cox CE, Shons AR: Breast cancer in patients with prior augmentation: Presentation, stage, and lymphatic mapping. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1737, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marchal F, Rauch P, Morel O, Mayer JC, Olivier P, Leroux A, Verhaeghe JL, Guillemin F: Results of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy for breast cancer are predictive of identification of axillary sentinel lymph nodes. World J Surg 30:55, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Buschpiegel C, Ono C, Montag E, Fells K, Arruda E, Sturtz G, Kovac P, Filassi JR, Gemperli R, Ferreira MC: The feasibility of sentinel lymph node detection in patients with previous transaxillary implant breast augmentation: preliminary results. Aesth Plast Surg 29:163, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reintgen et al: Sentinel lymph node sampling accurately stages breast cancer. JAMA 276:1818–1822, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanis PJ, Nieweg OE, Valdes Olmos RA, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ, Hoefnagel CA, Kroon BB: Impact of nonaxillary sentinel node biopsy on staging and treatment of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 87:705, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arturo Prado
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Patricio Andrades
    • 1
  • Patricio Leniz
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic SurgerySchool of Medicine, Clinical Hospital JJ Aguirre, University of ChileChile
  2. 2.Manquehue Norte 1707SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations