Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 125–128 | Cite as

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

  • Umar Daraz KhanEmail author
Letter to the Editor

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 [1], partial submuscular [2], dual plane [3], subfascial plane [4], and muscle-splitting biplane [5]. 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...

Keywords

Silicone Implant Silicone Breast Implant Augmentation Mammoplasty Pore Depth Texture Implant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Disclosure

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis: definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 91:657–662Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant soft tissue relationship in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:353–358Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan UD (2009) Selection of breast pocket using pinch test in augmentation mammoplasty: can it be relied on in the long term? Aesthet Plast Surg 33:780–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Baeke JL (2002) Breast deformity caused by anatomical or tear-drop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2555–2564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashley FL (1970) A new type of breast prosthesis: preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 45:421–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hester TR Jr, Nahai F, Bostwick J, Cukic J (1988) A 5-year experience with polyurethane covered mammary prosthesis for treatment of capsular contracture, primary augmentation mammoplasty and breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 15:569–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Raso DS, Grene WB, Metcalf JS (1994) Synovial metaplasia of periprosthetic breast capsule. Arch Pathol Lab Med 118:249–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Del Rosario AD, Bui HX, Petrocine S, Sheehan C, Pastore J, Singh J, Ross JS (1995) True synovial metaplasia of breast implant capsules: a light and electron microscopic study. Ultrastruct Pathol 19:83–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis and infection: comparative analysis of 1628 primary augmentation mammoplasties to assess the role and efficacy of length of antibiotic prophylaxis. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Psillakis JM, Facchina PH, Kharmandayan P, Trillo L, Canzi WC, Aguiar HR (2010) Review of 1,447 breast augmentation patients using PERTHESE silicone implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Re-shape HouseWestmallingUK

Personalised recommendations