Lactation Outcomes in More Than 3500 Women Following Primary Augmentation: 5-Year Data From the Breast Implant Follow-Up Study

Jewell, Mark L.; Edwards, Michael C.; Murphy, Diane K.; Schumacher, Andrew

doi:10.1093/asj/sjy221

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, these patients are more inclined to choose autologous fat grafting for breast augmentation, which can extract fat from the rest of the body, improve the breast shape, and, at the same time, make the body slimmer. In addition, previous studies have shown that many patients worried that the implant may affect breastfeeding and even lead to breast cancer, so unmarried women may be more likely to choose autologous fat grafting breast augmentation, and married women with increasing age and the impact of breastfeeding, breast ptosis was more obvious, so may be inclined to choose implant-based breast augmentation to adjust the appearance of the breast 14–16 . An additional factor to consider was that for employed women in a follow-up study, a large increase in breast volume may cause criticism among colleagues, which would prompt them to choose autologous fat grafting augmentation over implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Choice of Implant-based or Autologous Fat Grafting Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Li,

2024

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Breast augmentation mainly includes implant-based and autologous fat grafting augmentation. Choosing the right surgical method for the patient is particularly important. However, an analysis of the factors that may affect the choice of surgical methods among patients has not yet been performed. In this study, the authors sought to identify the factors that influence the choice of surgical methods for women who receive implant or autologous fat grafting breast augmentation. Methods: A total of 192 female patients with micromastia who were hospitalized for breast augmentation from June 2018 to June 2021 were included in the study. The enrolled patients were divided into the implant group (n=92) and the fat group (n=100). Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed on the data. Results: In the univariate analysis, there were statistical differences between the implant and fat group in weight, BMI, marital status, occupation, bilateral midsternal line-nipple distance difference, bilateral nipple-inframammary fold distance difference in the natural state, and others (P<0.05). In the final logistic binary regression analysis, the statistically different factors included the acceptable number of operations, chest circumference through the armpit, and chest circumference through the inframammary fold (P<0.05). Conclusion: There were several factors, such as acceptable numbers of operations, chest circumference through the armpit, and chest circumference through the inframammary fold, may affect the choice of breast augmentation surgery method for Chinese female patients. Level of Evidence: Level—III, retrospective cohort study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Choice of Implant-based or Autologous Fat Grafting Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Li,

2024

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common concern of women with breast implants is how these devices affect their ability to breast feed. The data shows that 79.4% of women with silicone breast implants are able to breast feed at least one child with the most common complication being insufficient milk production in 20% of cases, a number which closely mirrors that of the general population (103). Educating patients seeking breast implant removal…”

Section: Pregnancy Concerns and Breast Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast implant illness: a topic in review

Kaplan

Rohrich

2021

Gland Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since their introduction in 1962 by Cronin and Gerow, the safety of silicone breast implants has been studied more closely than many available medical devices. Today, nearly 300,000 breast augmentations and 100,000 breast reconstructions utilize breast implants annually in the United States (US). Despite years of technological advancement in the design and manufacturing, the basic design largely remains the same (1-3).In the early 1980's, just as third-generation silicone implants were being introduced, rising levels of consumer concern became evident in regard to the safety of silicone breast implants. During this time, the FDA's new surveillance system began to identify frequent local complications associated with silicone implants and these devices became classified as higher-risk devices. This new label required manufactures to become responsible for providing data that supported the safety of these devices for patient use (4). The safety of silicone breast implants has been controversial, with >400 reports on various health conditions believe to be in association with breast implants (5).Silicone breast implants were removed from market in 1992 after the FDA concluded that breast implant manufacturers had failed to appropriately address safety concerns. At that time manufacturers were instructed to perform core studies to better assess the safety profiles of silicone breast implants (6-10). Seven years later, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report titled,

show abstract

“…Those with implants had a 39% decreased risk of exclusive breastfeeding (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46‐0.86) and a 22% decrease in any breastfeeding (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81‐0.95) 55 . Jewell et al followed 4600 people who gave birth after a breast implant and found that 79% breastfed and 20% identified they had insufficient milk supply 57 . Roberts et al found that 79% of those with breast implants provided breast milk to their newborn at hospital discharge compared with 88.5% among those without implants (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87‐0.93) 56 .…”

Section: Glandular Causes Of Insufficient Lactationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired Lactation: Review of Delayed Lactogenesis and Insufficient Lactation

Farah

Barger

Klima

et al. 2021

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is estimated that as many as 1 in 20 women worldwide are unable to successfully breastfeed or provide adequate nutrition for their infants through their breast milk alone. Compromised nutrition in the early stages of life places the infant at risk for insufficient growth as well as serious and potentially disabling or life‐threatening complications. This review summarizes risk factors associated with impaired lactation that may result in either delayed lactogenesis or insufficient lactation. The risk factors for insufficient lactation are categorized into preglandular, glandular, and postglandular causes. Impaired lactation can occur despite maternal motivation, knowledge, support, and appropriate breastfeeding technique. Although there is no clear way to predict who will experience impaired lactation, knowledge about the risk factors can enable health care professionals to better identify at‐risk mother‐infant dyads. Early intervention may help prevent infant complications associated with inadequate nutritional intake.

show abstract

Lactation Outcomes in More Than 3500 Women Following Primary Augmentation: 5-Year Data From the Breast Implant Follow-Up Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 24 publications

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Choice of Implant-based or Autologous Fat Grafting Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Choice of Implant-based or Autologous Fat Grafting Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Study

Breast implant illness: a topic in review

Impaired Lactation: Review of Delayed Lactogenesis and Insufficient Lactation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About