Back-to-Front Flipping of Implants Following Augmentation Mammoplasty and the Role of Physical Characteristics in a Round Cohesive Gel Silicone Breast Implant: Retrospective Analysis of 3458 Breast Implants by a Single Surgeon
- 299 Downloads
Augmentation mammoplasty is one of the most commonly performed procedures today by plastic surgeons. Results and outcomes of the procedure depend on appropriate prosthesis selection, pocket selection, and pocket dissection. Available pockets are subglandular , partial submuscular , dual plane , subfascial plane , and muscle-splitting biplane . On the other hand, implant selection is not easy due to the multitude of available implant shapes, sizes, texturing, gel-fill ratios, and profiles. The choice may run into thousands when all of the available products of various manufacturers are added. Fewer available pockets and familiarity with them makes it easier to select a pocket; however, the battle to select and find an ideal implant is far from over. Comparative parity between the breast width and the implant dimension is of paramount importance regardless of the physical characteristics of an implant or pocket. However, the fine details of the result are in the...
KeywordsSilicone Implant Silicone Breast Implant Augmentation Mammoplasty Pore Depth Texture Implant
The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 1.Cronin TD, Gerow RM (1964) Augmentation mammoplasty: new “natural feel” prosthesis. In: translation of the third international congress of the plastic surgery, Excerpta Medica International Congress Series, No. 66. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 41-49Google Scholar
- 2.Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis: definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 91:657–662Google Scholar
- 5.Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:353–358Google Scholar
- 7.Khan UD (2010) Combining muscle splitting biplane with multilayer capsulorrhaphy for the correction of bottoming down following subglandular augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg. doi: 10.1007/s00238-010-0414-8
- 11.Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S, Rocher F, Blanchet-Bardon C, Revol M, Servant JM (2001) Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopy study. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:2047–2052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar