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

2018, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2018; 28 (3)

Experience with Keller's funnel in primary breast augmentation surgery

Durán VHC, Zapata GA

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 102-107
PDF size: 207.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Breast augmentation surgery is the most common procedure in aesthetic plastic surgery. Despite being considered a «clean» procedure, it is not exempt from complications, including bacterial contamination that leads to capsular contraction, a complication that may even lead to surgical reoperation. We present Keller's funnel as an alternative insertion device to the digital insertion technique that shows superiority in terms of preventing bacterial contamination and decreasing the surgical time used. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact on surgical time in breast augmentation surgery, as well as the rate of capsular contraction, before and after Keller's funnel device in our practice. A five-year retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary breast augmentation was performed. The patients were divided into two cohorts: surgeries with and without Keller's funnel. The surgical time between both groups and the rate of capsular contraction were compared. A total of 166 surgeries were performed in a five-year period. 70 used the digital insertion technique and 96 Keller's funnel. The surgical time was statistically lower in the group with the device. There was no statistical significance in the rate of capsular contracture. We conclude that Keller's funnel allows performing breast augmentation surgery with an improved «no touching» technique, decreasing surgical time and consequently factors that contribute to bacterial contamination.


REFERENCES

  1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Procedures Performed in 2014. [2015] Disponible en: https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/international-society-of-aesthetic-plastic-surgery-releases-global-statistics-on-cosmetic-Procedures. jul 9, 2015 3:00am

  2. Colombo C, Flores Z. Revisión a 5 años de técnicas quirúrgicas y características de los implantes en 2876 mamoplastias de aumento consecutivas. Cir Plast Iberolatinoam 2015; 41 (3): 219-233.

  3. Chopra K, Gowda AU, McNichols CHL et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis practice patterns in breast augmentation: a national survey of current practice. Ann Plast Surg 2017; 78 (6): 629-632.

  4. Rieger UM, Mesina J, Kalbermatten DF et al. Bacterial biofilms and capsular contracture in patients with breast implants. Br J Surg 2013; 100 (6): 768-774.

  5. Netscher DT. Subclinical infection as a possible cause of significant breast capsules. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 2229-2230.

  6. Ooi A, Song DH. Reducing infection risk in implant-based breast-reconstruction surgery: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2016; 8: 161-172.

  7. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (4): 567e-583e.

  8. Cohen JB, Carrol C, Tenenbaum MM, Myckatyn TM. Breast implant-associated infections: the role of the national surgical quality improvement program and the local microbiome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (5): 921-929.

  9. Mladick RA. “No-touch” submuscular saline breast augmentation technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 1993; 17 (3): 183-192.

  10. Zhang S, Blanchet NP. An easy and cost-effective method to perform the “no-touch” technique in saline breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (6): NP176-178.

  11. Koumanis DJ, Colque A, Eisemann ML, Smith J. Breast surgery under local anesthesia: second-stage implant exchange, nipple flap reconstruction, and breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2013; 40 (4): 583-591.

  12. Hunter M, Bahair G, Losken A. Sterility in breast implant placement: the Keller Funnel and the “no touch” technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (4): 9.

  13. Steiert AE, Boyce M, Sorg H. Capsular contracture by silicone breast implants: possible causes, biocompatibility, and prophylactic strategies. Med Devices (Auckl) 2013; 6: 211-218. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S49522.

  14. Cuenca-Pardo JA, Ramos G, Contreras 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.

  15. Flugstad N, Pozner J, Baxter R et al. Does implant insertion with a funnel decrease capsular contracture? a preliminary report. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (5): 550-556.

  16. Hunter R, Ghazi B, Saunders N, Losken A. Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (2): 194-199.

  17. Escudero F, Guarch R, Lozano J. Reacción tisular a las prótesis mamarias: contractura capsular periprotésica. Anales Sis San Navarra 2005; 28 (Suppl. 2): 41-53.

  18. Dancey A, Nassimizadeh A. Levick P. Capsular contracture. What are the risk factors? A 14 year series of 1,400 consecutive augmentations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65 (2): 213-218.

  19. Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular contracture after breast augmentation: an update for clinical practice. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (5): 532-543.

  20. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM et al. Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66: 1165-1172.

  21. Horsnell JD, Searle AE, Harris PA. Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation. A review. The Surgeon 2017; 15 (5): 282-289.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com