In the 1980s, the models of the Third and of the Fourth generations of breast implant devices were sequential advances in manufacturing technology, such as elastomer-coated shells that decreased gel-bleed (filler leakage), and a thicker (increased-cohesion) filler gel. Sociologically, the manufacturers of prosthetic breasts then designed and made anatomic models (natural breast) and shaped models (round, tapered) that realistically corresponded with the breast- and body- types of women. The tapered models of breast implant have a uniformly textured surface, which reduces the rotation of the prosthesis within the implant pocket; the round models of breast implant are available in smooth-surface- and textured-surface- types.
They are essentially very similar procedures. The difference is in the amount of breast tissue removed. In a breast lift procedure, the nipple areolar complex is lift to a better position on the breast, and some breast tissue is removed and the breast envelope tightened. In a breast reduction, the nipple areolar complex is also lifted, but much more breast tissue is removed.
Although reviewing before and after photographs is an important element in selecting the right rhinoplasty surgeon, choosing your surgeon solely on the basis of website photos is ill-advised. Indeed, countless disappointed rhinoplasty patients can attest to the deceptive and misleading nature of many rhinoplasty websites. Moreover, viewing online photos is no substitute for the consultation visit, where I can share numerous other before and after photos, many with noses similar in appearance to your own – a far more meaningful comparison. Although I have been slow to incorporate internet marketing into my rhinoplasty practice, the growing number of individuals who look to the internet as their sole source of medical information cannot be overlooked. Consequently, I offer this website as a source of candid information to equip the prospective rhinoplasty patient with accurate information and honest advice.
When the patient is unsatisfied with the outcome of the augmentation mammoplasty; or when technical or medical complications occur; or because of the breast implants’ limited product life, it is likely she might require replacing the breast implants. Common revision surgery indications include major and minor medical complications, capsular contracture, shell rupture, and device deflation. Revision incidence rates were greater for breast reconstruction patients, because of the post-mastectomy changes to the soft-tissues and to the skin envelope of the breast, and to the anatomical borders of the breast, especially in women who received adjuvant external radiation therapy. Moreover, besides breast reconstruction, breast cancer patients usually undergo revision surgery of the nipple-areola complex (NAC), and symmetry procedures upon the opposite breast, to create a bust of natural appearance, size, form, and feel. Carefully matching the type and size of the breast implants to the patient's pectoral soft-tissue characteristics reduces the incidence of revision surgery. Appropriate tissue matching, implant selection, and proper implantation technique, the re-operation rate was 3 percent at the 7-year-mark, compared with the re-operation rate of 20 per cent at the 3-year-mark, as reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The current lifetime risk of BIA-ALCL in the U.S. is unknown, but estimates have ranged between estimated to be between 1 in 70,000 to 1 in 500,000 women with breast implants according to MD Anderson. Certain geographic locations have demonstrated variable risks. For instance, a December 2016 update from the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia and New Zealand reported a risk of 1:1,000 to 1:10,000 for textured implants.". To date (2017), there has not been a case of BIAL reported where the patient had only implantation of smooth shell breast implants or a textured tissue expander that was exchanged for a smooth implant. The paucity of cases reported in Asian populations has raised the possibility that there may be a range of genetic susceptibility to the phenomena, or alternatively merely reflect differences in how cases are identified and reported.
When I moved to New York City after graduation, and began establishing myself and building a career, I suddenly felt the time was right to revisit the procedure. I met with Adam Kolker, a well-known plastic surgeon here in New York City, and immediately felt safe and heard. I respected his delicate, conservative approach and appreciated how he spent real time listening to my concerns and making sure I felt comfortable.
The amount of good quality, transferrable fat will depend on how much can be retrieved from the donor sites. This can be partially estimated after examination (the surgeon inspects and pinches the areas of potential fat harvest to get an idea of how much fat can realistically be harvested), but it is hard to know for sure until the procedure is well underway. Abdominal and love handle/flank fat tend to be the best sources because the fat is more easily retrieved and softer than back fat, but the back is also routinely liposuctioned in the BBL procedure to both obtain extra tissue for transfer and to improve the 360 degree shaping of the torso. I have transferred anywhere from 300cc per buttock to over 1200 in some patients, depending on the circumstances.