Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2019

01-08-2019 | Breast Augmentation | Original Article

Implant Insertion Time and Incision Length in Breast Augmentation Surgery with the Keller Funnel: Results from a Comparative Study

Authors: Paolo Montemurro, Sebastian Fischer, Sybille Schyllander, Patrick Mallucci, Per Hedén

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Keller funnel is an easy-to-use mechanical device that aids breast implant insertion. This study analyzed implant insertion time and incision length using the Keller funnel versus conventional manual insertion.

Methods

This was an analysis of two cohorts of adult patients undergoing primary breast augmentation with anatomical implants at a single center. In the ‘insertion time cohort’ (N = 20), implants were inserted with a Keller funnel on one side and manually on the other; follow-up lasted 4 years. In the ‘incision length cohort,’ both implants were inserted with a Keller funnel (N = 50) or manually (N = 50), with follow-up lasting 12 months.

Results

In the insertion time cohort, mean total insertion time (from implant sterile-package opening to final positioning in the pocket) was 35 s (range 13–76 s) with the Keller funnel and 25 s (range 13–43 s) using manual insertion (p = 0.07); the mean time needed to push the implant through the incision was 6 s (range 3–10 s) with the Keller funnel and 16 s (range 13–40 s) with manual insertion (p = 0.04). In the incision length cohort, mean incision length was shorter with the Keller funnel versus manual insertion (35.5 ± 2.1 mm vs. 46.2 ± 3.2 mm; p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications based on insertion method.

Conclusion

The Keller funnel was associated with decreased incision length and reduced time to push the implant through the incision. This brings potential clinical advantages in minimizing scarring and reducing contamination of the device.

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moyer HR et al (2012) Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model. Aesthet Surg J 32:194–199CrossRef Moyer HR et al (2012) Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model. Aesthet Surg J 32:194–199CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Flugstad NA et al (2016) Does implant insertion with a funnel decrease capsular contracture? A preliminary report. Aesthet Surg J 36:550–556CrossRef Flugstad NA et al (2016) Does implant insertion with a funnel decrease capsular contracture? A preliminary report. Aesthet Surg J 36:550–556CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Horsnell JD, Searle AE, Harris PA (2017) Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation—a review. Surgeon 15:282–289CrossRef Horsnell JD, Searle AE, Harris PA (2017) Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation—a review. Surgeon 15:282–289CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Newman AN, Davison SP (2018) Effect of Keller funnel on the rate of capsular contracture in periareolar breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:e1834CrossRef Newman AN, Davison SP (2018) Effect of Keller funnel on the rate of capsular contracture in periareolar breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:e1834CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Deva AK, Adams WP Jr, Vickery K (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1319–1328CrossRef Deva AK, Adams WP Jr, Vickery K (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1319–1328CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Adams WP Jr et al (2017) Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:427–431CrossRef Adams WP Jr et al (2017) Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:427–431CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hedén P (2011) Breast augmentation with anatomic, high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants (European experience). In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1322–1345 Hedén P (2011) Breast augmentation with anatomic, high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants (European experience). In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1322–1345
8.
go back to reference Montemurro P et al (2017) Implementation of an integrated biodimensional method of breast augmentation with anatomic, highly cohesive silicone gel implants: short-term results with the first 620 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J 37:782–792CrossRef Montemurro P et al (2017) Implementation of an integrated biodimensional method of breast augmentation with anatomic, highly cohesive silicone gel implants: short-term results with the first 620 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J 37:782–792CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Park AJ, Chetty U, Watson AC (1996) Patient satisfaction following insertion of silicone breast implants. Br J Plast Surg 49:515–518CrossRef Park AJ, Chetty U, Watson AC (1996) Patient satisfaction following insertion of silicone breast implants. Br J Plast Surg 49:515–518CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kalaaji A et al (2013) Survey of breast implant patients: characteristics, depression rate, and quality of life. Aesthet Surg J 33:252–257CrossRef Kalaaji A et al (2013) Survey of breast implant patients: characteristics, depression rate, and quality of life. Aesthet Surg J 33:252–257CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bizjak M et al (2015) Silicone implants and lymphoma: the role of inflammation. J Autoimmun 65:64–73CrossRef Bizjak M et al (2015) Silicone implants and lymphoma: the role of inflammation. J Autoimmun 65:64–73CrossRef
12.
go back to reference De Boer M et al (2017) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in a transgender woman. Aesthet Surg J 37:83–87CrossRef De Boer M et al (2017) Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in a transgender woman. Aesthet Surg J 37:83–87CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Carson B, Cox S, Ismael H (2018) Giant siliconoma mimicking locally advanced breast cancer: a case report and review of the literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 48:54–60CrossRef Carson B, Cox S, Ismael H (2018) Giant siliconoma mimicking locally advanced breast cancer: a case report and review of the literature. Int J Surg Case Rep 48:54–60CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hsu CK, Lin HH, Harn HI (2018) Mechanical forces in skin disorders. J Dermatol Sci 90:232–240CrossRef Hsu CK, Lin HH, Harn HI (2018) Mechanical forces in skin disorders. J Dermatol Sci 90:232–240CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Gowda AU et al (2017) Preventing breast implant contamination in breast reconstruction: a national survey of current practice. Ann Plast Surg 78:153–156CrossRef Gowda AU et al (2017) Preventing breast implant contamination in breast reconstruction: a national survey of current practice. Ann Plast Surg 78:153–156CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Implant Insertion Time and Incision Length in Breast Augmentation Surgery with the Keller Funnel: Results from a Comparative Study
Authors
Paolo Montemurro
Sebastian Fischer
Sybille Schyllander
Patrick Mallucci
Per Hedén
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01401-w

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2019 Go to the issue