Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 1/2010

Open Access 01-02-2010 | Original Article

Review of 1,447 Breast Augmentation Patients Using PERTHESE Silicone Implants

Authors: Jorge Miguel Psillakis, Paulo Henrique Facchina, Paulo Kharmandayan, Luis Trillo, Waldecir Chiarelo Canzi, Herberti Rosique Aguiar

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

A survey of surgeons in Brazil on their experience with PERTHESE silicone breast implants was performed.

Materials and methods

Surgeons that used PERTHESE implants between 2002 and 2008 were surveyed on the shape and volume of the implants used, surgical incision site, surgical plane of insertion, key postoperative complications, and surgeon and patient satisfaction.

Results

The survey had a response rate of 20%, with ten surgeons reporting data on 1447 patients. The majority of the implants used were 200–300 cc, round, and high profile. Preference for the traditional inframammary incision site (47% of patients) was favored over transaxillary (33%) and periareolar (19%), and both subglandular (55%) and submuscular (44%) planes of insertion were used. Over 97% of surgeons and patients were satisfied with the results and surgeons indicated that the implants were easy to use.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates that these implants are safe, maybe easier to introduce than other implants, and result in a high level of surgeon and patient satisfaction.
Literature
1.
go back to reference PERTHESE [package insert]. Bornel, France: Groupe PEROUSE PLASTIE, 1999 PERTHESE [package insert]. Bornel, France: Groupe PEROUSE PLASTIE, 1999
2.
go back to reference Auclair E, Staub S (2005) Round and anatomical mammary implants. Respective advantages and disadvantages. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 50:505–516CrossRefPubMed Auclair E, Staub S (2005) Round and anatomical mammary implants. Respective advantages and disadvantages. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 50:505–516CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779CrossRefPubMed Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Hedén P, Boné B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2006) Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(6):1281–1287CrossRefPubMed Hedén P, Boné B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2006) Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(6):1281–1287CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7 Suppl 1):40S–48SCrossRefPubMed Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7 Suppl 1):40S–48SCrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:697–710CrossRefPubMed Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:697–710CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Cunningham B, McCue J (2009) Safety and effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:440–444CrossRefPubMed Cunningham B, McCue J (2009) Safety and effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:440–444CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2007) Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7 Suppl 1):8S–16SCrossRefPubMed Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2007) Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7 Suppl 1):8S–16SCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Fruhstorfer BH, Hodgson ELB, Malata CM (2004) Early experience with an anatomical soft cohesive silicone gel prosthesis in cosmetic and reconstructive breast implant surgery. Ann Plast Surg 53:536–542CrossRefPubMed Fruhstorfer BH, Hodgson ELB, Malata CM (2004) Early experience with an anatomical soft cohesive silicone gel prosthesis in cosmetic and reconstructive breast implant surgery. Ann Plast Surg 53:536–542CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Review of 1,447 Breast Augmentation Patients Using PERTHESE Silicone Implants
Authors
Jorge Miguel Psillakis
Paulo Henrique Facchina
Paulo Kharmandayan
Luis Trillo
Waldecir Chiarelo Canzi
Herberti Rosique Aguiar
Publication date
01-02-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9405-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 1/2010 Go to the issue