medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2022, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2022; 32 (4)

Analysis of a survey based on the evolution and change in breast implants

Ramos-Gallardo G, Cuenca-Pardo J, Iribarren-Moreno R, Ramírez-Montañana A, Torres-Gómez B, Vélez-Benítez E, Contreras-Bulnes L, Morales-Olivera M, Bucio-Duarte JJ, Escalona E, Cárdenas-Camarena L

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 165-171
PDF size: 317.13 Kb.


ABSTRACT

We designed a survey applied to 520 plastic surgeons to analyze changes in the use of breast implants. Demographic variables, implant characteristics, surgical technique, postoperative care, and complications was collected. The results we obtained were compared with those in a previous survey. Round implants were the most used (N = 496, 95.3%). Antibiotic prophylaxis is used by 99% and cephalosporins are used in 75.5%. Pocket irrigation to prevent infection is used by 74.2% and the recommendations made by Adams to reduce infections are followed by 57.8%. The surgical accesses were inframammary sulcus 71.5%; periareolar 27.8% and axillary 0.5%. The subfascial plane was used in 35.7%, subglandular 27.5%, dual plane 18.8% and retro muscular 17.8%. 25.1% reported that they have had cases of infection between 1 and 5% of their patients. 43.6% report acute seroma in 5 to 10% of their patients and 34.2% report chronic seroma in less than 1%. Periareolar access was associated with a higher risk of infection (p = 0.001). It is not only the texture of the implant that is related to lymphoma, it has also been found that the involvement of bacteria, chronic irritation or a genetic component may be linked to this pathology. The change of the texture of the implants does not guarantee the decrease or eradication of the lymphoma. Breast implant-associated lymphoma has contributed to 59% of participants changing their preference regarding surgical technique and type of implant.


REFERENCES

  1. ISAPS. 2019. Disponible en: https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ISAPS-Global-Survey-2019-Press-Release-English.pdf

  2. Ramos-Gallardo G, Carballo-Zarate AA, Cuenca-Pardo J, Cárdenas-Camarena L, Solano-Genesta M, Beltrán JAC et al. What is the evidence of lymphoma in patients with prostheses other than breast implants? Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (2): 286-294.

  3. ISO 14607:2018. Non-active surgical implants—Mammary implants—Particular requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2018.

  4. Lista F, Tutino R, Ahmad J, Khan A. Subglandular breast augmentation with textured, anatomic, cohesive silicone implants: a review of 440 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (2): 295-303.

  5. Caravantes-Cortes I, Roldan-Valadez E, Zwojewski-Martínez RD, Salazar-Ruiz SY, Carballo-Zarate AA. Breast prosthesis syndrome: pathophysiology and management algorithm. Aesth Plast Surg 2020; 44 (5): 1423-1437.

  6. Pompei S, Evangelidou D, Arelli F, Ferrante G. The modern polyurethane-coated implant in breast augmentation: long-term clinical experience. Aesth Surg J 2016; 36 (10): 1124-1129.

  7. Clemens MW, DeCoster RC, Fairchild B, Bessonov AA, Santanelli di Pompeo F. Finding consensus after two decades of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33 (4): 270-278.

  8. Ramos-Gallardo G, Cuenca-Pardo J, Rodríguez-Olivares E, Iribarren-Moreno R, Contreras-Bulnes L, Vallarta-Rodríguez A et al. Breast implant and anaplastic large cell lymphoma meta-analysis. J Invest Surg 2017; 30 (1): 56-65.

  9. Ramos-Gallardo G, Cuenca-Pardo J, Cardenas-Camarena L, Duran-Vega H, Rodríguez-Olivares E, Bayter-Marin JE et al. Is Latin America ready to identify anaplastic large cell lymphoma in breast implants patients? Regional encounter during the national plastic surgery meeting in Cancun, Mexico. Aesthet Plast Surg 2018; 42 (5): 1421-1428.

  10. Quiros MC, Bolaños MC, Fassero JJ. Six-year prospective outcomes of primary breast augmentation with nano surface implants. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (5): 495-508.

  11. Han J, Jeong JH, Bang SI, Heo CY. BellaGel breast implant: 4-year results of a prospective cohort study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2019; 53 (4): 232-239.

  12. Zingaretti N, Galvano F, Vittorini P, De Francesco F, Almes-Berger D, Riccio M et al. Smooth prosthesis: our experience and current state of art in the use of smooth sub-muscular silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Plast Surg 2019; 43 (6): 1454-1466.

  13. El-Haddad R, Lafarge-Claoue B, Garabedian C, Staub S. A 10-year prospective study of implant-based breast augmentation and reconstruction. Eplasty 2018; 8 (18): e7.

  14. Barr S, Hill EW, Bayat A. Functional biocompatibility testing of silicone breast implants and a novel classification system based on surface roughness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 75: 75-81.

  15. Adams WP Jr, Culbertson EJ, Deva AK, R Magnusson M, Layt C, Jewell ML et al. Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (3): 427-431.

  16. Cuenca-Pardo J, Vélez BE, Ramos-Gallardo G et al. Seroma, an alert of pathologies related to breast implants. Evidence based medicine. Cir Plast 2019; 29 (1): 15-34. doi: 10.35366/CP191B.

  17. Ramos-Gallardo G, Ríos-Lara y López RL, Cuenca-Pardo J et al. Management of chronic seroma in patients with breast implants in relation to the diagnosis of anaplastic lymphoma of giant cells. Cir Plast 2019; 29 (1): 147-162.

  18. Cuenca-Pardo JA, Ramos-Gallardo G, Contreras-Bulnes L et al. Factores relacionados con las infecciones en implantes mamarios. Encuesta a miembros de la Asociación Mexicana de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reconstructiva. Cir Plast 2015; 25 (1): 6-14.

  19. Tebbets JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (7): 81S-98S.

  20. Gowda AU, Chopra K, Brown EN, Slezak S, Rasko Y. Preventing breast implant contamination in breast reconstruction: a national survey of current practice. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 78 (2): 153-156.

  21. Singh N, Picha GJ, Hardas B, Schumacher A, Murphy DK. Five-year safety data for more than 55,000 subjects following breast implantation: comparison of rare adverse event rates with silicone implants versus national norms and saline implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (4): 666-679.

  22. Duteille F, Perrot P, Bacheley MH, Stewart S. Eight-year safety data for round and anatomical silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (2): 151-161.

  23. Handel N, Garcia E, Wixtrom R. Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact and management. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (5): 1128-1137.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com