Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
BMC Surg ; 20(1): 248, 2020 Oct 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33081756

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation with implants continues to be the most popular aesthetic surgical procedure performed worldwide. Fat grafting may improve the results of breast augmentation and breast reconstruction with implants. However, fat grafting to the breast with implants carries the risk of implant puncture. To our best knowledge this is the first case in which polyurethane implant puncture during fat grafting is described. CASE PRESENTATION: We report multiple bilateral implant punctures with the cannula during fat grafting in a patient who previously underwent breast reconstruction with polyurethane implants. CONCLUSIONS: Implants that promote tissue ingrowth may be more prone to puncture with the cannula during fat grafting. Specific planning and surgical maneuvers decrease the risk of implant puncture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, case report.


Assuntos
Tecido Adiposo , Implantes de Mama , Neoplasias da Mama , Mamoplastia , Tecido Adiposo/transplante , Adulto , Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Mastectomia , Poliuretanos
3.
Aesthetic Plast Surg ; 44(1): 70-79, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31591671

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Implementation of polyurethane-covered (PU) implants into practice requires a reassessment of the experience and a learning curve period. Occasional publications describe a few difficulties in this regard. However, there are no publications covering the spectrum of errors. The absence of definite information and contradictory findings makes the learning curve longer leading to many unsatisfactory results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematization is based on the 12 years of experience with over 1000 patients and previously published data. A literature review was conducted using PUBMED with the following keywords: polyurethane or foam or sponge and breast and implant. A total of 285 articles were found (last accessed 08/13/2019). All articles concerning polyurethane implants were studied along with any articles found describing the surgical techniques applied to them. Additional references found in the above-mentioned articles were also included in the study. RESULTS: All errors can be divided into planning errors, errors in pocket development and surface-dependent errors, for which the polyurethane surface is the main reason. Surface-dependent errors include the errors connected to positioning and biointegration. The possible causes of late seroma with PU implants are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The polyurethane surface should not be considered textured in the clinical point of view. Previous experience with non-PU implants cannot be transferred to PU implants. The learning curve is unavoidable. The systematization of errors with PU implants facilitates a decision-making process during the primary and secondary surgery and lowers the risk of the unsatisfactory results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.


Assuntos
Implante Mamário , Implantes de Mama , Mamoplastia , Implante Mamário/efeitos adversos , Implantes de Mama/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Poliuretanos , Desenho de Prótese
4.
Aesthetic Plast Surg ; 43(1): 70-75, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30311035

RESUMO

Polyurethane (PU) implants are associated with great difficulties in extraction if secondary surgery is needed. The published data are contradictory, often misleading, making the decision for the secondary surgery complicated, the time period and the procedure itself not optimal, thus negatively influencing the final result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Typical videos of PU implant removal in different periods after primary surgeries with polyurethane implants were selected for the study. The videos show the strength and extent of the tissue ingrowth and the manipulations needed for implant extraction in different periods from the initial procedure. Classifications of the types of adhesion and adhesion patterns are introduced. CONCLUSIONS: The data provided in this article facilitate the decision-making process if secondary surgery is indicated. Secondary surgery should be performed in the first 30 days after the initial surgery or in the period after 6 months. The optimal layer for removal of the PU implant depends on the time after the primary surgery. The polyurethane implant should be exchanged after 1 month if the properties of the polyurethane foam are expected to be used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .


Assuntos
Implante Mamário/efeitos adversos , Implantes de Mama , Remoção de Dispositivo/métodos , Poliuretanos/efeitos adversos , Falha de Prótese , Gravação em Vídeo , Implante Mamário/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Desenho de Prótese , Reoperação/métodos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...