Types of Errors Made During Breast Augmentation with Polyurethane Implants: A Systematic Review

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

doi:10.1007/s00266-019-01510-6

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The factors that interfere with it include traumatic technique, infection, fluid collection, impaired vascularization, wide pocket, early mobility and were discussed in detail in recent publications. 8,9 Analyzing our cases of primary nonadherence, we noticed that in one case small hematoma on the left which we decided to treat conservatively was diagnosed shortly after the surgery (►Fig. 1).…”

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Batiukov,

Podgaiski

2024

Indian J Plast Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taken together, these benefits may be an especially important pull factor for patients wishing to avoid subsequent breast surgeries after their primary augmentation. 29 , 30 More importantly, many patients seeking quality work demand greater precision and care and want as predictable of results as possible with minimal scar visibility. With a sufficiently affordable and inert option now on the market, mesh may serve its role in breast implant surgery as more than just a structural support or bail-out option in difficult revisional cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation

Chiemi¹,

Kelishadi²

2022

Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Textured breast implants have been used in aesthetic breast surgery to decrease rates of implant malposition. Recent analysis of a large-volume single-surgeon experience found statistically similar rates of malposition in smooth versus micro-textured breast implants. Objectives Prophylactic use of a Polydioxanone (PDO) internal support matrix in breast augmentation was hypothesized to prevent scar malposition and increase pocket control. Methods 200 patients received silicone gel primary augmentations performed by a single surgeon from January 2018–December 2020. 84 patients received smooth implants alone; 49 patients received micro-textured implants; 67 patients received smooth implants plus PDO internal support matrix. All surgeries were performed in the dual-plane using an inframammary incision. Implant-related complications and scar malposition were recorded and compared. Results No significant difference in implant-related complication rates was found between shell types (3.57% for smooth devices alone, 2.04% for textured devices [P=0.62, 95% CI -0.06–0.01]). There were zero complications in the smooth plus mesh study arm. Comparison of scar malposition rates between the smooth alone and textured groups revealed no significant difference (15.4% for smooth devices and 8.16% for textured devices [P=0.23, 95% CI -0.12–0.01]). The smooth implant group with prophylactic placement of PDO mesh had the lowest scar malposition rate of 4.48%, a significant difference compared to the smooth devices alone [P=0.03, 95% CI -0.21– -0.01%]. Conclusions Micro-textured devices show a trend towards decreased scar malposition, although not significant. Prophylactic use of PDO internal support matrix in silicone gel breast augmentation is safe and has the lowest incidence of scar malposition.

show abstract

Synthetic Reabsorbable Mesh (GalaFLEX) as Soft Tissue Adjunct in Breast Augmentation Revision Surgery

Buccheri¹,

Villanucci

Mallucci

et al. 2022

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A significant number of patients with a previous submuscular breast augmentation require a revision surgical procedure during their long-term follow-up period that involves implant pocket change from submuscular to subglandular. Reduced soft tissues thickness represent a major concern that would discourage surgeon to undertake this approach. Objectives The authors sought to determine whether a synthetic resorbable mesh use as supplemental covering device was safe and yielded improved soft tissues thickness and protection against capsular contracture in patients that undergo implant plane shift to subglandular. Methods A retrospective review of 34 patients who underwent revision of a previous breast augmentation involving implant change in a subglandular pocket and upper pole GalaFLEX (Galatea Surgical, Lexington, MA, USA) mesh coverage was conducted. Minor and major complications onset were recorded during short and medium-term follow-up. Patient satisfaction was assessed via an anonymous questionnaire administered 6 months postoperatively. Results During our follow-up period that ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 28 months we did not report minor or major complications. In particular we did not observe wrinkling/rippling or significant capsular contracture onset. High levels of patients’ satisfaction were determined, according to self-reporting questionnaires. Conclusions Initial results of this preliminary report from our case series demonstrate the safety of GalaFLEX as supplemental device in terms of improved soft tissue coverage of the implant for complex revisional cases in breast augmentation.

show abstract

Types of Errors Made During Breast Augmentation with Polyurethane Implants: A Systematic Review

Cited by 4 publications

References 64 publications

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation

Synthetic Reabsorbable Mesh (GalaFLEX) as Soft Tissue Adjunct in Breast Augmentation Revision Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About