Use Of Breast Implants Research Articles

Indications, conditions de réalisation et techniques de la mastectomie avec reconstruction immédiate dans le cancer du sein

Achieving a mastectomy occurs in one third of the acts of breast cancer surgery. In the present context, the increase in the diagnosis of early breast cancer, including widespread or multifocal forms, the possibility of a reconstruction at the same time is discussed. It will be proposed in a specific context, taking into account various factors: oncological (characteristics of the tumor, adjuvant treatments), clinical (smoking, comorbidity) and psychological (choice of the patient). The technique of mastectomy will be adapted to the indication and choice of reconstruction procedure. Including the preservation of the nipple-areola complex, or the skin envelope will be possible for some guidance. The reconstruction is possible with the use of breast implants, or musculocutaneous flaps or by the combination of both. Some of these techniques are associated with significant morbidity, and appropriate selection of procedure to the patient will guarantee a lower risk of complications.

Textured Surface Breast Implants in the Prevention of Capsular Contracture among Breast Augmentation Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Capsular contracture is a common complication associated with the use of breast implants. Numerous randomized controlled trials addressing the efficacy of textured surface breast implants in reducing capsular contracture have yielded nonuniform results. This meta-analysis addresses the use of textured breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials involving the use of textured versus smooth breast implants. The results of these trials were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio of the effect of textured surfacing on capsular contracture rates. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed based on implant type (saline or silicone gel), type of surface texturing (Siltex or Biocell), placement (subglandular or submuscular), and length of follow-up. Eleven trials were reviewed. Four were excluded because they failed to meet a priori inclusion criteria. The remaining seven trials were meta-analyzed. Only three of these studies found significantly lower rates of capsular contracture with the use of textured implants. However, when all seven studies were pooled, the odds ratio was found to be 0.19 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.52), indicating a protective effect for surface texturing on the rate of capsular contracture. Submuscular placement was the only subgroup in which significance was not achieved. However, this subgroup consisted of a single study, which was dramatically underpowered. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate the superiority of textured over smooth breast implants in decreasing the rate of capsular contracture.

Assessment of the breast volume by a new simple formula

Background: With the recent introduction of improved techniques for plastic surgery of the breast and increased public awareness toward these procedures, plastic surgeons are continuously trying to improve their methods and results to reach perfection. Assessment of the breast volume is an important issue prior to the use of breast implants in any aesthetic or reconstructive breast surgery. Previous methods to measure breast volume have included use of a simple bra and breast cup size, cumbersome fluid displacement, appliances and approximate visual estimation. Objectives: In this work we have tried to develop an easy method for assessment of the breast volume for both the patient and the the surgeon through a simple mathematical formula. Materials and Methods: Fifty two volunteers were included in this study. For every one, general parameters including age, weight and height were recorded. Local breast measurements and water volume displacement were also recorded. Results: The collected data were statistically correlated. Using the analyzed data, the breast volume was calculated through a simple and direct formula on the basis of the breast circumference. Conclusion: Our method has, as its principle, the use of an accurate and simple formula, which is based only on one measurement. This is easy for both the patient and the plastic surgeon. This equation is not only a significant technical advantage for the surgeon, but also provides a universal standardization of the breast volume.

Assessment of the breast volume by a new simple formula

Abstract Background: With the recent introduction of improved techniques for plastic surgery of the breast and increased public awareness toward these procedures, plastic surgeons are continuously trying to improve their methods and results to reach perfection. Assessment of the breast volume is an important issue prior to the use of breast implants in any aesthetic or reconstructive breast surgery. Previous methods to measure breast volume have included use of a simple bra and breast cup size, cumbersome fluid displacement, appliances and approximate visual estimation. Objectives: In this work we have tried to develop an easy method for assessment of the breast volume for both the patient and the the surgeon through a simple mathematical formula. Materials and Methods: Fifty two volunteers were included in this study. For every one, general parameters including age, weight and height were recorded. Local breast measurements and water volume displacement were also recorded. Results: The collected data were statistically correlated. Using the analyzed data, the breast volume was calculated through a simple and direct formula on the basis of the breast circumference. Conclusion: Our method has, as its principle, the use of an accurate and simple formula, which is based only on one measurement. This is easy for both the patient and the plastic surgeon. This equation is not only a significant technical advantage for the surgeon, but also provides a universal standardization of the breast volume.

Breast conservative treatment in association with implant augmentation and intraoperative radiotherapy

After conservative treatment for small breast cancer the use of breast implants is controversial due to the negative effects of external conventional radiotherapy on soft tissues and the risk of capsular contracture. The literature reports several cases of unsuccessful breast augmentation due to implant displacement, a high percentage of capsular contracture and postoperative complications. We report the case of a 47-year-old woman with a small tumour between the inner quadrants of the left breast. She underwent quadrantectomy and sentinel node biopsy and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) of the target zone. Simultaneously, she received a bilateral augmentation mammaplasty. One year later we observed no evidence of local recurrence, no local fibrosis and radiodistrophy. Cosmetic results are excellent and the patient is very satisfied. The surgical technique and the possible advantage of such a procedure are also discussed.

Advances in Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy

Over the past 40 years, surgical reconstruction of the breast following mastectomy has become an important aspect of the cancer patient's rehabilitation process. While the surgical emphasis remains on a cure for the cancer, experience with breast reconstruction has not demonstrated any increased rate of cancer recurrence, even when reconstruction is performed immediately following tumor resection. Advances in surgical technique and biotechnology have made post-mastectomy reconstruction possible. The development of silicone gel and saline-filled implants as well as tissue expanders has revolutionized breast reconstruction. The elucidation of musculocutaneous flaps now provides the surgeon with the ability to transfer adequate quantities of vascularized tissue to reconstruct the surgical defects. The advent of microsurgical techniques has provided an additional reconstructive option, with free tissue transfer allowing the plastic surgeon to move musculocutaneous flaps from remote or distant sites to reconstruct the defect. The option of having the reconstruction immediately following the mastectomy procedure is now available to the patient. When reviewing the anatomy of the breast region, the surgeon must consider the mammary gland, its vascular supply, and its lymphatic system. The surgical techniques involved in reconstruction after mastectomy include the use of breast implants and tissue expansion, as well as reconstruction with autogenous tissues. Reconstruction with autogenous tissues includes the use of latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap, transverse rectus abdominus musculocutaneous flap, free flap transfer, as well as nipple-areola reconstruction. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy should be undertaken by a plastic and reconstructive surgeon with considerable training and experience with these diversified procedures.

The Infected or Exposed Breast Implant: Management and Treatment Strategies

Among the potential complications associated with the use of breast implants are the risks of periprosthetic infection and device extrusion. There is little published information about the effective management of these situations. Conservative recommendations include antibiotic therapy and removal of the implant until resolution of the infection or until the wound has healed. A retrospective review identified patients with periprosthetic infection or threatened or actual device exposure treated by the senior author. Twenty-four patients encompassing 26 affected prostheses were available for review and were classified into seven groups based on initial presentation as follows: group 1, mild infection (n = 8); group 2, severe infection (n = 4); group 3, threatened exposure without infection (n = 3); group 4, threatened exposure with mild infection (n = 3); group 5, threatened exposure with severe infection (n = 1); group 6, actual exposure without clinical infection (n = 5); and group 7, actual exposure with infection (n = 2). To salvage the prosthesis in these patients, various treatment strategies were utilized. All patients with a suspected infection or device exposure were started immediately on appropriate antibiotic therapy (oral antibiotics for mild infections and parenteral antibiotics for severe infections). Salvage methods included one or more of the following: antibiotic therapy, débridement, curettage, pulse lavage, capsulectomy, device exchange, primary closure, and/or flap coverage. Twenty (76.9 percent) of 26 threatened implants with infection or threatened or actual prosthesis exposure were salvaged after aggressive intervention. The presence of severe infection adversely affected the salvage rate in this series. A statistically significant difference exists among those patients without infection or with mild infection only (groups 1, 3, 4, and 6); successful salvage was achieved in 18 (94.7 percent) of 19 patients, whereas only two of seven of those implants with severe infection (groups 2, 5, and 7) were salvaged (p = 0.0017). Ten (90.9 percent) of 11 devices with threatened or actual exposure, not complicated by severe infection (groups 3, 4, and 6), were salvaged. Several treatment strategies were developed for periprosthetic infection and for threatened or actual implant exposure. Patients with infection were placed on oral or intravenous antibiotics; those who responded completely required no further treatment. For persistent mild infection or threatened or actual exposure, operative intervention was required, including some or all of the following steps: implant removal, pocket curettage, partial or total capsulectomy, débridement, site change, placement of a new implant, and/or flap coverage; the menu of options varied with the precise circumstances. No immediate salvage was attempted in five cases, due to either severe infection, nonresponding infection with gross purulence, marginal tissues, or lack of options for healthy tissue coverage. Based on the authors' experience, salvage attempts for periprosthetic infection and prosthesis exposure may be successful, except in cases of overwhelming infection or deficient soft-tissue coverage. Although an attempt at implant salvage may be offered to a patient, device removal and delayed reinsertion will always remain a more conservative and predictable option.

Breast Implant Technology: What Can We Count On?

Scott L. Spear, MD, Washington, DC , is a board-certified plastic surgeon and an ASAPS member. Over the past few years, the use of breast implants has increased dramatically, from 60,000 in 1992 to an estimated 280,000 units in 1998.1 During this time, however, the breast implant technology available in this country has changed very little. What will the breast implant technology of the future look like? What will be available for nonrestricted use within the next 3 to 5 years? Before these questions can be answered, it should be recognized that any innovation must clear substantial regulatory hurdles. Additionally, any company that launches a new product expects to receive adequate financial return: The development, manufacturing, and sale of breast implants are a costly business, and without a reasonable expectation for success and profit, a diligent company would not pursue the effort. Significant new breast implant technology has been developed in the United States over the last 7 years, has been clinically proven abroad, and is poised to enter the US market. I will discuss only those innovations that are highly likely to be available once the regulatory hurdles are crossed. Although anatomic breast implants are not new, in the last 5 years at least 5 of these styles have become available. The rationale is that a full matrix of shapes meets a broad range of patient needs. This matrix is based on the proportion of projection-to-base width in 3 different height ranges and yields more than 100 potential implants that meet the anatomic needs of most women undergoing augmentation and reconstruction. On the basis of 5 years of experience with the matrix approach in Europe by one manufacturer, approximately 80% of patient needs are satisfied …

Imaging breasts with silicone implants.

Over the last two decades, the use of breast implants both for breast augmentation and for breast reconstruction following mastectomy has increased substantially. It is estimated that around two million women have undergone breast augmentation, while hundreds of thousands have had breast reconstruction surgery. Different types of material have been used for breast implants, but silicone gel implants have been the dominating implant type. Many implants can lead to complications, such as hardening and rupture, and may therefore need in vivo evaluation by imaging, particularly if they lead to clinical symptoms. They can also pose problems in the assessment of surrounding breast tissue by conventional mammography. In this respect, imaging modalities such as ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging offer greater possibilities to assess a failing implant, as well as surrounding breast tissue. Several factors, mainly of a psychological nature, lead to requests for breast implants. In this review article, only the imaging aspects of breasts with silicone gel implants will be dealt with. Each modality is concisely presented with its possibilities and limitations.

Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women

Breast surgery is a common procedure performed in women. Many women who undergo breast surgery suffer from ill-defined pain syndromes. Although there exists a few reports on the incidence of post mastectomy pain, there are no published reports on chronic pain after breast reconstruction. This investigation attempts to characterize the pain after four types of breast surgery: (1) mastectomy, (2) mastectomy with reconstruction, (3) cosmetic augmentation, and (4) breast reduction. A questionnaire was mailed to 479 women who underwent breast surgery at the University of California, San Diego Medical Center between January 1988 and December 1992. A second mailing was sent to women who did not respond to the first mailing. Women were divided into four groups; mastectomy, mastectomy with reconstruction, cosmetic augmentation, and breast reduction. In the mastectomy and mastectomy with reconstruction groups, only women who had a lumpectomy with axillary dissection, a modified radical mastectomy, or a radical mastectomy were used in the study. 59% of the women responded. The incidence of pain occurring at least one year after surgery in the mastectomy + reconstruction group (49%) was significantly higher than the mastectomy (31%) and breast reduction (22%) groups. Thirty-eight percent of the women with breast augmentation complained of pain. Women who had reconstruction using breast implants had a higher incidence of pain (53%) than those without (30%). The pain incidence in women who had reconstruction without implants was identical to women who had a mastectomy without reconstruction. There was no relationship between the use of silicone or saline implants and pain (22% and 33% respectively). However, the submuscular placement of the implants resulted in a significantly higher incidence of pain (50%) than the subglandular placement (21%). Of the women that reported pain, arm pain was significantly higher in the mastectomy and mastectomy + reconstruction group (56% and 42%, respectively) as compared to the breast reduction group (0%). Most patients reported intermittent pain in all groups. Of the women that reported pain, the mastectomy and mastectomy + reconstruction group had higher pain related to movement (41% and 42%, respectively) than the augmentation and breast reduction groups (15% and 9%, respectively). The peak pain intensity was significantly higher in the augmentation group as compared to the mastectomy group. Our incidence of post mastectomy pain is higher than most reports. The incidence of breast pain is highest in the mastectomy + reconstruction and augmentation groups which is assumed to be secondary to breast implants. Every effort should be made to achieve the best cosmetic result in breast reconstruction which in many cases justifies the use of breast implants. However, these women should be counseled on the possibility of developing chronic pain.

Reconstruction and the Radiated Breast

The use of breast implants in irradiated patients is controversial. Recently, 39 irradiated implants were compared with 338 nonirradiated implants in 297 patients between January of 1975 and October of 1994 at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Tissue expanders and follow-up time of less than 6 months excluded patients from the study. Five groups of patients were identified. Group 1 consisted of 7 patients and 7 implants who received postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after implant placement. Group 2 consisted of 5 patients and 7 implants who received preoperative adjuvant radiotherapy prior to implant placement. Groups 3 and 4 consisted of 2 and 12 patients (2 and 19 implants) placed beneath latissimus dorsi flaps who had postoperative and preoperative adjuvant radiotherapy, respectively. Group 5 contained 4 patients with 4 implants placed beneath a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap who had preoperative radiotherapy. All implants were placed submuscularly or beneath autogenous flaps. The average irradiated breast received 50 Gy. For statistical purposes, two categories were identified. Capsular contracture (Baker III or greater), pain, exposure, and implant removal in 6 of 14 implants that received radiotherapy were compared with similar complications in 33 of 266 implants without irradiation (p = 0.001). The second category contained 10 complications in 25 implants placed beneath autogenous reconstructions with radiotherapy compared with 6 of 72 similar complications in implants placed beneath autogenous reconstructions without radiotherapy (p = 0.000). Results showed that irradiation has significant negative effects on the reconstructive outcome with implants. Autogenous reconstruction did not appear to offer a protective role when placed over implants.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Breast reconstruction. Surgical options and patient selection.

Breast reconstruction has undergone a steady evolution since the introduction of the silicone gel prosthesis in the early 1960s. Current restrictions of the use of breast implants have increased the reliance on autologous tissue reconstruction. The improvement in the quality of breast reconstruction can be attributed in part to a refinement in mastectomy technique. There is an increasing emphasis on skin preservation, which makes it easier to match the remaining breast. In this paper, various methods, including tissue expansion, the latissimus dorsi flap, the transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap, and free flaps, are described. The indications as well as potential complications for each methods also are discussed. Local recurrence after breast conservation generally necessitates a total mastectomy. Radiation fibrosis and endarteritis interfere with skin blood supply and impair wound healing. Reconstruction in this setting has a potential for increased operative morbidity. Treatment options, including techniques to reduce potential complications, are presented.

Breast Cancer and Silicone Implants: Psychological Consequences for Women

One of every nine women in the United States is expected to develop breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. An estimated 180000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year (7-5). For many of these women, excision of the tumor, resulting in surgical modification of the breast, is the primary component of the treatment response. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (4) estimates that approximately 20% of these women elect breast implant surgery following mastectomy. The use of breast implants, particularly silicone implants, has generated considerable discussion in scientific forums, clinical treatment settings, lay consumer groups, legislatures, and regulatory agencies. Surgical insertion of breast implants dates back to the initial use of polyvinyl alcohol sponges (5). However, relatively few implant procedures were performed until the