medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2020, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2020; 65 (4)

Double bilateral capsule in mammoplasty of increase

Velázquez AFJ, Soto VFJ, Nicolás CCF, Manzo HM

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 315-319
PDF size: 258.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Mammoplasty with the use of breast implants is an increasingly common procedure, both in cosmetic surgery for augmentation mammoplasty and for subsequent oncological reconstruction of a total mastectomy. The increase in the performance of this procedure has been betrayed by a proportional increase in postsurgical complications at this very moment. Although complications associated with implants mastoplasty are diverse, the phenomenon of double capsule is a complication infrequent, in recent years has gained an important interest in plastic surgery. An intentional search in the main medical databases confirms the unusualness of the case, finding no more than 40 articles published. In the present article we present the case of the finding of a bilateral double capsule phenomenon in a patient with textured mammary implants (BIOCELLMT McGhan ST-110) of retromuscular location with an 8-year postoperative state, in a apparently healthy 46-year-old woman. It shows a double fibrous capsule, one closely attached to the implant and another looser covering both structures. As well as an analysis of the literature recently published in recent years, focusing on the physiopathology and accepted theories in the etiology of this phenomenon.


REFERENCES

  1. ISAPS Global Statistics 2016. July 1, 2016. 2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Disponible en: www.isaps.org/Media/Default/global-statistics/2016%20ISAPS%20Results.pdf.

  2. Hall-Findlay EJ. Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 127 (1): 56-66.

  3. Maxwell GP, Brown MH, Oefelein MG, Kaplan HM, Hedén P. Clinical considerations regarding the risks and benefits of textured surface implants and double capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128 (2): 593-595.

  4. Update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-filled Breast Implants. Center for Devices and Radiological Health & U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 2011.

  5. Caplin DA, Vargo JM, Canady J, Hammond D. Long-term clinical performance of memoryshape silicone breast implants in breast augmentation: prospective data through 9 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 134 (4): 92-93.

  6. Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Revisiting the management of capsular contracture in breast augmentation: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016; 137 (3): 826-841.

  7. Matteucci P, Fourie le R. Double capsules related to dynamic malrotation of breast implants: a causal link? Br J Plast Surg. 2004; 57 (3): 289.

  8. Nava MB, Rancati A, Angrigiani C, Catanuto G, Rocco N. How to prevent complications in breast augmentation. Gland Surg. 2017; 6 (2): 210-217.

  9. Miranda RN, Aladily TN, Prince HM, Kanagal-Shamanna R, de Jong D, Fayad LE et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: long-term follow-up of 60 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32 (2): 114-120.

  10. Walker JN, Pinkner CL, Pinkner JS, Hultgren SJ, Myckatyn TM. The detection of bacteria and matrix proteins on clinically benign and pathologic implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019; 7 (2): e2037.

  11. Góes JC, Landecker A. Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003; 27 (3): 178-184.

  12. Toscani M. Breast implant complication: calcifications in the double capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 131 (3): 462-464.

  13. Pinchuk V, Tymofii O. Seroma as a late complication after breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011; 35 (3): 303-314.

  14. Allan JM, Jacombs AS, Hu H, Merten SL, Deva AK. Detection of bacterial biofilm in double capsule surrounding mammary implants: findings in human and porcine breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 129 (3): 578-580.

  15. Picha GJ. Mammary implants: surface modifications and the soft tissue response. Semin Plast Surg. 1991; 5 (2): 54-79.

  16. Atlan M, Bigerelle M, Larreta-garde V, Hindié M, Hedén P. Characterization of breast implant surfaces, shapes, and biomechanics: a comparison of high cohesive anatomically shaped textured silicone, breast implants from three different manufacturers. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016; 40 (1): 89-97.

  17. Smahel J, Hurwitz PJ, Hurwitz N. Soft tissue response to textured silicone implants in an animal experiment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 92 (3): 474-479.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com