Preoperative assessment preferences and reported reoperation rates for size change in primary breast augmentation: A survey of ASPS members

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 130, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1352-1359

  Choudry, Umar ^a   Kim, Nicholas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST AUGMENTATION; BREAST IMPLANT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONFLICT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN; PLASTIC SURGERY; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REOPERATION; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST; BREAST IMPLANTATION; BREAST IMPLANTS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PHYSICIANS; PREOPERATIVE CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REOPERATION; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SURGERY, PLASTIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84870867042     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d9f66     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2011 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery. org. Accessed March 18, 2012.
2. Gutowski KA, Mesna GT, Cunningham BL. Saline-filled breast implants: A Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation multicenter outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100: 1019-1027.
3. Cunningham BL, Lokeh A, Gutowski KA. Saline-filled breast implant safety and efficacy: A multicenter retrospective review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:2143-2149.
4. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:757-767; discussion 768-772.
5. Silverman BG, Brown SL, Bright RA, Kaczmarek RG, Arrowsmith-Lowe JB, Kessler DA. Reported complications of silicone gel breast implants: An epidemiologic review. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:744-756.
6. Araco A, Gravante G, Araco F, Delogu D, Cervelli V, Walgenbach K. A retrospective analysis of 3,000 primary aesthetic breast augmentations: Postoperative complications and associated factors. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31:532-539.
7. McCafferty LR, Casas LA, Stinnett SS, Lin S, Rho J, Skiles M. Multisite analysis of 177 consecutive primary breast augmentations: Predictors for reoperation. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29: 213-220.
8. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, et al. A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 127:1300-1310.
9. Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor's Memory Gel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:440-444.
10. Mentor Corporation. Saline-Filled Breast Implant Surgery: Making an Informed Decision. Santa Barbara, Calif: Mentor Corporation; 2000:11-19.
11. McGhan Medical Corporation. Saline-Filled Breast Implant Surgery: Making an Informed Decision. Santa Barbara, Calif: McGhan Medical Corporation; 2000:10-18.
12. Adams WP Jr, Teitelbaum S, Bengtson BP, Jewell ML, Tebbetts J, Spear S. Breast augmentation roundtable. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(Suppl):175S-187S.
13. Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA. Mentor Contour Profile gel implants: Clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1381-1391.
14. Hidalgo DA. Breast augmentation: Choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 105:2217-2216; discussion 2217-2218.
15. Spear SL, Dayan JH, West J. The anatomy of revisions after primary breast augmentation: One surgeon's perspective. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36:157-165, viii.
16. 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;118:1453-1457.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Tebbetts JB. A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:1396-1409; discussion 1410-1415.
20. Prado AC, Castillo PF. Tape measure used as a simple method for breast implant selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 111:2114-2116.
21. Bracaglia R, Fortunato AR, Gentileschi S. A simple way to choose the right implant volume in breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005;29:407-408.
22. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1781-1787.
23. Gore SM, Lamberty BG. PERTHESE implant-identical cohesive-gel sizers in breast augmentation: A prospective report on 200 consecutive cases and implications for treatment of breast asymmetry. Aesthetic Surg J. 2012;32:310-318.
24. Adams WP. The High Five Process: Tissue-based planning for breast augmentation. Plast Surg Nurs. 2007;27:197-201.
25. Creasman CN, Mordaunt D, Liolios T, Chiu C, Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. Four-dimensional breast imaging, part 1: Introduction of a technology-driven, evidence-based approach to breast augmentation planning. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:914-924.
26. Gladilin E, Gabrielova B, Montemurro P, Hedén P. Customized planning of augmentation mammaplasty with silicon implants using three-dimensional optical body scans and biochemical modeling of soft tissue outcome. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:494-501.
27. Gabriel A, Fritzsche S, Creasman C, Baqai W, Mordaunt D, Maxwell GP. Incidence of breast and chest wall asymmetries: 4D photography. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:506-510.