A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 51-65

  Jewell, Mark L ^a,c,d   Jewell, James L ^b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^c Allergan Corporation   (United States)

^d Mentor Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

breast augmentation; complications of breast augmentation; form stable silicone gel breast implants; patient satisfaction with breast augmentation; reoperation following breast augmentation

Indexed keywords

SILICONE GEL;

ADULT; ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; BREAST AUGMENTATION; BREAST ENDOPROSTHESIS; BREAST EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRACTURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; NIPPLE; NORMAL HUMAN; ORGAN SIZE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REOPERATION; SENSORY DYSFUNCTION; SEROMA; SILICONE PROSTHESIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BREAST IMPLANTATION; BREAST IMPLANTS; COHORT STUDIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REOPERATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954058642     PISSN: 1090820X     EISSN: 1527330X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1090820X09360700     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adams WP Jr. The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008 ; 122: 1892-1900.
2. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005 ; 116: 2005-2016.
3. Tebbetts JB Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: Part II. Patient preparation, refined surgical techniques, and instrumentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002 ; 109: 293-305.
4. Tebbetts JB Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001 ; 107: 1255-1272.
5. Tebbetts JB Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types, updated discussion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 ; 118 (suppl): 99S - 102S.
6. Jewell M. Breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2009 ; 36: 75-89.
7. Magee D. How Toyota became #1. New York: Penguin ; 2007.
8. Cohen S. Service quality and productivity in ambulatory surgery. Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) October 2005: 10-11.
9. Graban M. Lean hospitals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press ; 2009.
10. Tebbetts JB Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: Part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002 ; 109: 273-290.
11. Adams WP Jr, Teitelbaum S., Bengtson BP, Jewell ML, Tebbetts J., Spear S. Breast augmentation roundtable. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 ; 18 (suppl): 175-187.
12. Niechajev I., Jurell G., Lohjelm L. Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007 ; 31: 697-710.
13. Jewell M. Synmastia after breast augmentation: discussion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 ; 118 (suppl): 172-174.
14. Brown MH, Shenker R., Silver SA Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005 ; 116: 768-779.
15. Hedén P., Jernbeck J., Hober M. Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants. Clin Plast Surg 2001 ; 28: 531-552.
16. Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A., Maxwell GP Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 ; 120 (suppl 1). 40-48.
17. Hedén P., Boné B., Murphy DK, Slicton A., Walker PS Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 ; 118: 1281-1287.
18. Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A., Walker PS Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 ; 120 (suupl 1). 8S - 16S.
19. Cunningham B. The mentor study on contour profile gel silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 ; 120 (suppl 1). 33S - 39S. (Pubitemid 350306656)
20. Cunningham B. The Mentor core study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007 ; 120 (suppl 1). 19S - 29S.
21. Hodgkinson DJ Buckled upper pole breast style 410 implant presenting as a manifestation of capsular contraction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1999 ; 23: 279-281.
22. Hart D. Overcoming complications of breast implants. Plast Surg Nurs 2003 ; 23: 55-63.
23. Mentor Saline-Filled and Spectrum Mammary Prosthesis: Directions for Use Product Data Sheet. Santa Barbara, CA: Mentor Corporation ; 2005.
24. Inamed Silicone-Filled Breast Implants: Directions for Use Product Data Sheet. Irvine, CA: Allergan Corporation ; 2006.
25. Stevens G., personal communication, February 2009.
26. Baeke JL Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002 ; 109: 2555-2567. 27. Hidalgo DA Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation by John L. Baeke, M.D. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002 ; 109: 2568-2569.
27. Adams WP Jr, Conner CH, Barton FE, Jr, Rohrich RJ Optimizing breast-pocket irrigation: the post-betadine era. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001 ; 107: 1596-1601.
28. Fannous N., Salem I., Tawile C., Bassas AE Absence of capsular contracture in 319 consecutive augmentation mammaplasties: dependant drains as a possible factor. Can J Plast Surg 2004 ; 12: 193-197.
29. Adams WP, Bengston BP, Glicksman CA, et al. Decision and management algorithms to address patient and food and drug, administration concerns regarding breast augmentation and implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004 ; 114: 1252-1257.
30. Tebbetts JB Reoperations as a benchmark: the rhetoric, the logic, and the patient. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008 ; 122: 663-665.
31. Tebbetts JB Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 ; 118: 1543-1457.