Removal of Polyurethane Implants

Batiukov, Dmitry; Podgaiski, V.; Ladutko, D.

doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1254-3

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, with polyurethane implants this maneuver is useless and even harmful because the tissues are stuck to the implant. In the described case FG was performed one month after polyurethane implant placement when tissue ingrowth may have already become substantial [49]. This probability along with thin tissues and scaring played an important role in the implant puncture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple polyurethane implant punctures during fat grafting: case report and review of the literature

Batiukov¹,

Podgaiski

Mikulich

et al. 2020

BMC Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Breast augmentation with implants continues to be the most popular aesthetic surgical procedure performed worldwide. Fat grafting may improve the results of breast augmentation and breast reconstruction with implants. However, fat grafting to the breast with implants carries the risk of implant puncture. To our best knowledge this is the first case in which polyurethane implant puncture during fat grafting is described. Case presentation We report multiple bilateral implant punctures with the cannula during fat grafting in a patient who previously underwent breast reconstruction with polyurethane implants. Conclusions Implants that promote tissue ingrowth may be more prone to puncture with the cannula during fat grafting. Specific planning and surgical maneuvers decrease the risk of implant puncture. Level of evidence Level V, case report.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple polyurethane implant punctures during fat grafting: case report and review of the literature

Batiukov¹,

Podgaiski

Mikulich

et al. 2020

BMC Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonadherence of the PU implants was first mentioned in 2018 describing various patterns of PU implant removal. 6 In this article, we define this complication in detail.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anterior surface was also easier than posterior detached from the capsule intraoperatively due to the implant manufacturing process. 6 We assume that if not existent from the very beginning as an area of partial primary nonadherence, a small initial area of the partial secondary nonadherence usually appears somewhere on the anterior surface of the implant mainly because of the never-ending physical influence due to gravity and movements. The less is the integration, the more is the strain on the still integrated parts of the implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonadherence of the PU implants was first mentioned in 2018 describing various patterns of PU implant removal. 6 In this article, we define this complication in detail. According to the pathogenesis, nonadherence can be divided on primary and secondary and may be complete (no areas of adherence remain) or partial (some areas of adherence are still present).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Batiukov,

Podgaiski

2024

Indian J Plast Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Biointegration of polyurethane (PU) implants providing their stable position years after surgery ensures predictable results of breast augmentation and reconstruction almost eliminating implant factor as a cause of complications. However, in rare cases PU implants appear to be not connected to the surrounding tissues. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PU implant nonadherence after primary breast augmentations and augmentation mastopexies with dual plane implant position, to analyze possible causes, and to propose preventive measures and treatment possibilities of this complication. Methods The results of primary aesthetic surgeries in 333 patients with dual plane PU implant placement were analyzed. Patients were evaluated clinically, and pictures and videos taken in different periods after the surgery were compared. Particular attention was given to the changes in implant position and the appearance of asymmetries over time. Results PU implant nonadherence was found in seven patients. It can be divided into primary and secondary and may be complete or partial. Primary nonadherence was found in two cases (0.6%), and secondary in five (1.5%) cases. Possible influencing factors could have been traumatic surgical technique, seroma, hematoma, or physical trauma. The average follow-up was 33 months (1 month–15 years). Conclusion Biointegration is mandatory for the long-term predictable results with PU implants. PU implant nonadherence leads to implant malposition and may cause typical complications connected to non-PU implants. Improvements in surgical maneuvers, manufacturing process, and weight reduction of the implant may be beneficial for the stability of the results. Level of Evidence V

show abstract