Top

Published in:

01-06-2006 | Original Paper

Revision operations after silicone gel breast implantation: a retrospective study

Authors: E. J. F. van Reij, J. P. A. Nicolai

Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery | Issue 1/2006

Abstract

The present study discusses the number of reoperations in 10 years after silicone gel breast implantation in a cosmetically augmented group and a reconstructive group. Information was obtained from a total of 185 medical records. The aesthetic group contained 105 patients, the reconstructive group 37; 43 patients were excluded because of insufficient follow-up. The mean number of reoperations in the cosmetic group was 0.72 (SD=1.40); 67 patients had no revisions. In the reconstructive group, the mean number of reoperations was 2.59 (SD=2.03); five patients had no revisions. In the entire group of 142 patients, 72 (50.7%) had only the primary operation, 29 (20.4%) had one revision, and 41 (28.9%) had two or more revisions after breast implantation in the ten-year follow-up period (p=0.00). Reconstructive patients have a higher risk of reoperation than cosmetic patients. The most common complication in both groups was capsular contracture.

Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Myra Kim H et al (2002) Complications in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: Two-year results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(7):2265–2274CrossRefPubMed

Brown SL, Penello G (2002) Replacement surgery and silicone gel breast implant rupture: self-report by women after mammoplasty. J Women’s Health Gend Based Med 11(3):255–264CrossRefPubMed

Clough KB, O’Donoghue JM, Fitoussi AD et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruction: I. Implant reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(7):1702–1709CrossRefPubMed

Cohen BE, Biggs TM, Cronin ED et al (1997) Assessment and longevity of the silicone gel breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 99(6):1597–1601PubMedCrossRef

Collis N, Sharpe DT (2000) Silicone gel-filled breast implant integrity: a retrospective review of 478 consecutively explanted implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(6):1979–1985; Discussion 1986–1989PubMedCrossRef

Embrey M, Adams EE, Cunningham B et al (1991) Factors associated with breast implant rupture: pilot of a retrospective analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg 23(3):207–212CrossRef

Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O’Fallon WM et al (1997) Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 336(10):677–682CrossRefPubMed

Hammond DC, Hidalgo D, Slavin S et al (1999) Revising the unsatisfactory breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(1):277PubMedCrossRef

Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q et al (1995) The fate of breast implants: a critical analysis of complications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 96(7):1521–1533PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(6):2202–2216; Discussion 2217–2218PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kjöller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH et al (2002) Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 48(3):229–237CrossRefPubMed

12.

Malata CM, Feldberg L, Coleman DJ et al (1997) Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? Three-year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 50(2):99–105CrossRefPubMed

13.

Marotta JS, Goldberg EP, Habal MB et al (2002) Silicone gel breast implant failure: evaluation of properties of shells and gels for explanted prostheses and meta-analysis of literature rupture data. Ann Plast Surg 49:227–247CrossRefPubMed

14.

Netscher DT, Sharma S, Thornby J et al (1997) Aesthetic outcome of breast implant removal in 85 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 100(1):206–219PubMedCrossRef

15.

Peters W, Pritzker K, Smith D et al (1998) Capsular calcification associated with silicone breast implants: incidence, determinants, and characterization. Ann Plast Surg 41(4):348–360PubMedCrossRef

16.

Rohrich RJ, Hartley W, Brown S (2003) Incidence of breast and chest wall asymmetry in breast augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(4):1513–1519; Discussion 1520–1523CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tebbetts JB (2004) “Out points” criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(5):1258–1262CrossRefPubMed

18.

International Breast Implant Registry. See: http://www.ibir.org

Title: Revision operations after silicone gel breast implantation: a retrospective study
Authors: E. J. F. van Reij
J. P. A. Nicolai
Publication date: 01-06-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Plastic Surgery / Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0930-343X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-0130
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-006-0039-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Revision operations after silicone gel breast implantation: a retrospective study

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2006

Aspergillus osteomyelitis of the thumb in a 5-year-old child

Infantile digital fibromatosis: late results of two different treatment approaches

Commentary on “A modified therapeutic option for long-lasting success in the treatment of genital lymphedema” by Lang, et al.

A book review of Antonella Tosti, Pearl E. Grimes, Maria P. De Padova (eds): “Color atlas of chemical peels”

Thermography of hands after a radial forearm flap has been harvested

Behavioural modelling for design decomposition and design equations derivation