Conical polyurethane implants: an uplifting augmentation

A Shakespearean Dilemma in Breast Augmentation: to Use Drains or not? a Systematic Review : Drains in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly requested and performed plastic surgery procedures. In order to prevent early postoperative complications such as seroma or hematoma, surgical drains could be useful. The aim is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of surgical drains in primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were queried in search of clinical studies describing the use of surgical drains in women undergoing primary breast augmentation with implants and documenting seroma and/or hematoma formation rate and/or infection rate.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 2596 studies, and 162 were found relevant. Full-text review and application of our inclusion criteria to all retrieved papers produced 38 articles that met inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 16 papers reported the use of surgical drains in breast augmentation, while in the remaining 22 articles drains were not used. Only 5 studies specifically investigated the role and effectiveness of surgical drains in augmentation mammaplasty and its possible relationship with complication rate such as seroma, hematoma or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar complication rates emerged from the analyzed articles, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, we were not able to demonstrate specifically whether drain use affects the rate of early postoperative complications such as seroma, hematoma and infection. Additional randomized controlled trials are strongly advocated in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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

BACKGROUND

Implementation of polyurethane-covered (PU) implants into practice requires a reassessment of the experience and a learning curve period. Occasional publications describe a few difficulties in this regard. However, there are no publications covering the spectrum of errors. The absence of definite information and contradictory findings makes the learning curve longer leading to many unsatisfactory results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematization is based on the 12 years of experience with over 1000 patients and previously published data. A literature review was conducted using PUBMED with the following keywords: polyurethane or foam or sponge and breast and implant. A total of 285 articles were found (last accessed 08/13/2019). All articles concerning polyurethane implants were studied along with any articles found describing the surgical techniques applied to them. Additional references found in the above-mentioned articles were also included in the study.

RESULTS

All errors can be divided into planning errors, errors in pocket development and surface-dependent errors, for which the polyurethane surface is the main reason. Surface-dependent errors include the errors connected to positioning and biointegration. The possible causes of late seroma with PU implants are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The polyurethane surface should not be considered textured in the clinical point of view. Previous experience with non-PU implants cannot be transferred to PU implants. The learning curve is unavoidable. The systematization of errors with PU implants facilitates a decision-making process during the primary and secondary surgery and lowers the risk of the unsatisfactory results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

The history and development of breast implants

This review discusses the historical development of smooth and textured silicone gel filled implants, and examines the reasoning behind product development and aspects of surgical technique from a surgeon's perspective.

The waterfall effect in breast augmentation

The 'waterfall effect' is a descriptive term to indicate a sliding ptosis of parenchymal breast tissue over a fixed or encapsulated implant. It occurs more frequently than surgeons anticipate and especially over the longer term after augmentation. Certain breast implants are more prone to contribute to this problem as are implants placed in submuscular pockets that ride high, especially in women with anatomical musculoskeletal variance or asymmetry. This article describes the aetiology of sliding ptosis in more detail, the relevant anatomy and the surgical correction. Understanding the problem enables the surgeon to plan the appropriate procedure and obtain proper informed consent. It is possible that a two stage procedure is necessary should the upper pole of breast require a debulk, either early (3 to 12 months) or later as the breast may slide with ageing of the tissues. The waterfall effect of breast parenchyma over implants is only apparent when the upper torso of the woman is undressed and she is in an erect posture. A significant number of women are happy with this situation and therefore no further action is required. Those that want an improved appearance in these circumstances can try autologous fat transfer to rebulk the surrounding tissues but generally the most likely solution involves a mastopexy with or without implant exchange. The results are highly rewarding but the scars are the legacy. Mastopexy augmentation is a difficult procedure and should only be performed by experienced surgeons. Many surgeons prefer a two stage approach with either an implant based augmentation first to limit scars and see if the patient is happy with the outcome or a first stage mastopexy to decide whether implants or fat graft are actually required as a secondary procedure.

Polyurethane Implants in 2-Stage Breast Reconstruction: 9-Year Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

Capsular contracture (CC) is a major complication of breast surgery with smooth and textured implants. Polyurethane (PU) foam-coated breast implants were developed to decrease the incidence of CC.

OBJECTIVES

The authors determined the incidence of CC following 2-stage breast reconstruction using PU foam-covered implants, with and without radiation therapy.

METHODS

The records of 92 patients who received 115 PU implants were retrospectively reviewed. The rates of CC over time were compared for irradiated and nonirradiated groups with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. CC rates also were analyzed with respect to age.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time for patients was 103.3 months. Nine patients experienced unilateral Baker grade III or IV fibrous CC, including 6 patients from the irradiated group and 3 patients from the nonirradiated group. The overall cumulative incidence of CC at 9 years was 8.1%. In the irradiated and nonirradiated groups, the 9-year cumulative incidence was 10.7% and 5.5%, respectively. CC occurred within 3 years in the irradiated group and within 7 years in the nonirradiated group. The incidence of CC appeared to be higher among younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation therapy increases the risk of high-grade CC with textured or smooth implants. PU implants are associated with a much lower cumulative incidence of CC following 2-stage breast reconstruction, even when radiotherapy is performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

Polymeric Biomaterials for Medical Implants and Devices

In this review article, we focus on the various types of materials used in biomedical implantable devices, including the polymeric materials used as substrates and for the packaging of such devices. Polymeric materials are used because of the ease of fabrication, flexibility, and their biocompatible nature as well as their wide range of mechanical, electrical, chemical, and thermal behaviors when combined with different materials as composites. Biocompatible and biostable polymers are extensively used to package implanted devices, with the main criteria that include gas permeability and water permeability of the packaging polymer to protect the electronic circuit of the device from moisture and ions inside the human body. Polymeric materials must also have considerable tensile strength and should be able to contain the device over the envisioned lifetime of the implant. For substrates, structural properties and, at times, electrical properties would be of greater concern. Section 1 gives an introduction of some medical devices and implants along with the material requirements and properties needed. Different synthetic polymeric materials such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polydimethylsiloxane, parylene, polyamide, polytetrafluoroethylene, poly(methyl methacrylate), polyimide, and polyurethane have been examined, and liquid crystalline polymers and nanocomposites have been evaluated as biomaterials that are suitable for biomedical packaging (section 2). A summary and glimpse of the future trend in this area has also been given (section 3). Materials and information used in this manuscript are adapted from papers published between 2010 and 2015 representing the most updated information available on each material.

The In Vivo Pericapsular Tissue Response to Modern Polyurethane Breast Implants

Polyurethane breast implants were first introduced by Ashley (Plast Reconstr Surg 45:421-424, 1970), with the intention of trying to reduce the high incidence of capsular contracture associated with smooth shelled, high gel bleed, silicone breast implants. The sterilization of the polyurethane foam in the early days was questionable. More recently, ethylene oxide (ETO)-sterilized polyurethane has been used in the manufacturing process and this has been shown to reduce the incidence of biofilm. The improved method of attachment of polyurethane onto the underlying high cohesive gel, barrier shell layered, silicone breast implants also encourages bio-integration. Polyurethane covered, cohesive gel, silicone implants have also been shown to reduce the incidence of other problems commonly associated with smooth or textured silicone implants, especially with reference to displacement, capsular contracture, seroma, reoperation, biofilm and implant rupture. Since the introduction of the conical polyurethane implant (Silimed, Brazil) into the United Kingdom in 2009 (Eurosurgical, UK), we have had the opportunity to review histology taken from the capsules of polyurethane implants in three women ranging from a few months to over 3 years after implantation. All implants had been inserted into virgin subfascial, extra-pectoral planes. The results add to the important previously described histological findings of Bassetto et al. (Aesthet Plast Surg 34:481-485, 2010). Five distinct layers are identified and reasons for the development of each layer are discussed. Breast capsule around polyurethane implants, in situ for fifteen and 20 years, has recently been obtained and analysed in Brazil, and the histology has been incorporated into this study. After 20 years, the polyurethane is almost undetectable and capsular contracture may appear. These findings contribute to our understanding of polyurethane implant safety, and give reasoning for a significant reduction in clinical capsular contracture rate, up to 10 years after implantation, compared to contemporary silicone implants. A more permanent matrix equivalent to polyurethane may be the solution for reducing long-term capsular contracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .