Archive for the ‘Breast Augmentation’ Category

Recovery time after breast augmentation surgery

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

What is the recovery time after breast augmentation surgery  is a question frequently asked by patients.  To answer  that question  each patient has to be define what they mean by “recovery”. Do you mean “when can I return to work” or “when can I return to unrestricted  physical activity” or does recovery refer to the time period until final results are obtained.

As far as return to work is concerned,   most of my patients can return to work within 48-72 hours of their surgery, provided of course they are not involved in some type of  job in which physical labor is involved (such as overhead use of the arms as in warehouse workers or construction work. Seriously, I have had  patients  who work on road crews and in the construction industry). I tell my patients that as soon as they no longer require narcotic pain medications there is no reason why they can not return to work.  9 out of 10  of my patients use over the counter Tylenol and Motrin  after the first post operative day to control post operative discomfort and use narcotics only at night before bedtime.  I utilize long acting local anesthetics in the operating room so that each patient is pain free upon  completion of their surgery.  This technique  in conjunction with a comprehensive post operative recovery  regime  minimizes  pain  management .  I discuss what all this entails with my patients at their initial consult. I used the “pain pump” after surgeries when they were first brought out on the market years ago, but after extensive experience with both the pain pump and my own post operative pain management regime, my regime is vastly superior to the pain pump. Hundreds of patients can attest to that. In fact I still have several unused, unopened pain pumps in my inventory at my surgical facility.  If a patient is some how sold on the idea of a pain pump after their surgery  I can provide that option.

Regarding return to unrestricted physical activity, the time frame for this  is generally 3 – 6 weeks depending on whether the implant was placed above the muscle or below the muscle. Anything which will elevated the blood pressure or heart rate after surgery will increase blood flow through the area which is trying to heal. This will induce more swelling. More swelling is counter productive to  long term outcome. This is especially true if the implant is placed under the muscle. The muscle swells quite a bit after surgery on its own just by the nature of the procedure;  patients shouldn’t do anything which amplifies this response.  I will allow patients to resume light activity after the second week and see how each patient responds. After three weeks I generally allow for any type of physical activity for submammary augmentation patients and six weeks for submuscular. Also, by six weeks the muscle has healed to the point that strenuous  physical activity can not cause any injury to the muscle which could cause internal bleeding and produce a hematoma (blood collection) around the implant.  Physical intimacy can be resumed as soon as the individual feels comfortable doing so. ( But no “rough stuff” for a couple of weeks! ).  I am perhaps slightly more conservative than some surgeons, but I feel my extremely low re-operation/complication rate speaks for itself.

The last aspect of the recovery phase is how long until the final  results. By final results I mean complete healing and also the appearance of the breast contour. Let me address breast contour first.  Once again this time frame is shorter for submammary augmentation patients than for submuscular because the role the pectoral muscle plays in the post operative breast shape. In both types of surgery patients will experience what is known as “upper pole ” swelling or fullness. ( upper pole  refers to the region of the breast above the nipple areolar complex, the inferior pole is the area below).  The breast tissue itself recovers relatively quickly and it is not uncommon for my submammary breast augmentation patients to have their final shape within  two or three weeks of their surgery. This time frame is longer in those patients who started off with tighter breast tissue and experience what is known as “soft tissue” stretch due to the implant. The more the soft tissue has to stretch to accommodate the implant, the more swelling there may be, hence a slightly longer recovery period. (this is one reason why it is not a good idea to have  an implant which is too larger for your individual breast characteristics. This should be determined and thoroughly discussed with each patient  when  deciding implant shape and size).  The inferior pole often times has to expand somewhat in order to accommodate the implant and this can take a couple of weeks as well. This response to the surgery and placement of the implant is amplified when the implant is placed under the muscle. For submuscular augmentation patients it maybe as long as two or three months before the upper pole swelling resolves completely and the breasts accommodates to  the implant. By six weeks most of the swelling has resolved and the great majority of patients do not appreciate any residual swelling and are extremely happy with their new size and shape. It is when you look at side by side comparisons of pictures taken at 6 weeks versus 12 weeks when these subtle nuances can be seen. And for the most part the differences are quite subtle.

The other aspect of final healing is how long until the numbness from the surgery resolves and the scars fade.  Sensation returns somewhat in the first or second post operative week  and  returns completely by six to twelve weeks. The more soft tissue stretch the longer this may take. Residual numbness can take as long as a year to completely resolve but this is very unusual. Scars tend to be red for  a couple of  months and gradually fade over a year or so. The  blonde,  blue eyed patients tend to have redder scars initially but also tend to fade to the whitest given time. Darker colored individuals tend to develop darker scars which take a year or so to completely fade. Thick or raised/wide scars  are exceedingly rare in my practice for several reasons which I discuss with each patient during their consult.  There are several post operative scar management regimes I discuss with each patient throughout their recovery based on their needs which will maximize the quality of their scars and minimize the visibility. Remember: there is no such thing as a “scarless scar” in the adult patient.  But by and large the long term scars from breast augmentation surgery heal very nicely and inconspicuously.

The last aspect regarding recovery from breast augmentation surgery which I stress with each patient is the need to be vigilant about good support garments to maintain the newly acquired breast contour and the need for pocket exercises to keep  the breasts soft and feeling natural.  If patients are committed to these post operative breast augmentation recommendations they can expect to  achieve the best possible long term outcome  and avoid problems.

What does Breast Augmentation Surgery Cost?

Saturday, January 21st, 2012

The typical cost of breast augmentation surgery, including implants can vary from low of $5800.00 for saline implants to a high of more than $8500.00 for silicone implants.  In some parts of the country ( like New York City for example), breast augmentation surgery can be $10,00 or more. Fortunately in the MidWest the costs are more reasonable. My practice charges $5900 for saline and $7000 for silicone. From time to time we will run specials and these prices can drop  significantly. Of course these prices can increase depending on the costs of the implants, supplies,  medications and anesthesia related expenses used  to perform the surgery.  So why such a disparity in costs?  It is because there are several factors which make up the entire cost, and each of these  factors can vary considerably thereby affecting the bottom line. So by knowing only what the surgeon charges or how much a particular set of implants cost, will be only  part of the picture. That is why it is important to get the entire cost.

First there is the surgeon’s fee. Each surgeon’s fee will be   different  and this may be based on his or her experience ,  the time involved and how the followup visits are handled.  The number of follow up visits and for how long (how many weeks or months) vary from surgeon to surgeon as does who actually sees the follow up patients.  Sometimes the doctor spends only  a few minutes with a patient in follow up and delegates most of the follow up visit responsibilities to  his or her nurses. Also the surgeon’s  technique is an important consideration. A transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation takes more time  because the equipment set up time is much more involved, and it is technically more involved than other techniques.  Expect to pay a  more for this particular technique.  The facility may also ask for slightly more if this technique is used because of the expense  of the equipment and the time and effort involved with the cleaning and care of this equipment.. At my facility the additional cost is usually on the order of an additional $1000.That covers all additional expenses for transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation. For patients who are adamant about  having no scarring on the breast, this is worth the premium cost.

Next is the  Facility /Operating Room (OR) fees  and anesthesia services  which are another major cost  factor. Facility fees and anesthesia services are generally separate fees incurred by the patient, but every once in awhile they are rolled into a single  “facility” fee.  These fees can vary  between facilities as to how they charge for their time and services.  Generally hospitals are more expensive than free standing  ambulatory surgery facilities and office based  surgical facility being the least expensive, but  this may not always be the case. Many facilities charge a basic rate for  breast augmentation surgery, say for an hour or so of O.R. time  with  the recovery room being included.  Same is usually true for anesthesia services.  Anesthesia services may be slightly more if you undergo a general anesthesia versus local with IV sedation. However, if your surgeon goes over  the allotted block of time he or she has set aside for you or you are slow to recover from the anesthesia , then the patient is frequently made responsible for these  additional charge. So beware of this  “add-on” cost which you, the patient can get stuck with. Often times I hear patients tell me how they are told  by other physician’s office staff  “not to worry”, “that hardly ever happens” etc.  The fact is that  these “overage” fees can AND do occur.

In fact my own patients have had this unpleasant experience before I built my own facility. This scenario absolutely never occurs at my facility;  I guarantee it , so there are no surprises when it comes to  the  facility  and/or anesthesia costs. Surgery is stressful enough for the patient,  so there will be NO  stressing over this issue.

The last cost factor are the implants themselves. Depending on what type of implant the patient selects (silicone or saline) the cost of the implants can vary from around $1000.00 for saline and about twice that for silicone.  Implant manufacturers have  their own  costs as well, so not all saline  or silicone implants will be identical in cost. I do not not charge a premium for silicone augmentation surgery above the actual costs I incur by the manufacturers for the implants themselves. Some practices do charge more for silicone augmentation surgery because of the additional time and effort to close the slightly longer incisions utilized for the silicone implants.

One thing which I stress to patients who are considering breast augmentation, or any type of cosmetic surgery for that matter is that while cost is an important consideration, it should be about the last thing on your list when choosing who performs your surgery  or  where. The most important consideration is whether or not your surgery will be done #1 safely, and #2 effectively. Then you must have a good overall feel for the surgeon and his staff. Are they highly experienced, do you share them same sense of aesthetics regarding size and shape, do you like the results  this particular surgeon obtains, are you comfortable in the presence of the surgeon and staff. All these factors should come into play when making your choice.  Whether  or not you got your surgery for a discount or for ” a really good deal” will mean nothing if you are not happy  and  healthy  afterwards….food for thought.

 

Implant position: Under or over the muscle?

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

A breast augmentation patient inquired yesterday as to whether it is better to place the implant above or below the muscle. The answer to this question depends very much on the individuals characteristics of the patient and the patient’s  desires. The simple answer from your potential surgeon of “that is the way I do all my breast augmentation surgeries” is not good enough reason to choose one route over another.

Generally the most important consideration in deciding if a breast implant should be placed above the muscle, referred to as a submammary breast augmentation,              ( click here or click here to view before/after submammary breast augmentation) or under/below the muscle,  referred to as a submuscular or subpectoralpectoral breast augmenatation  (click here to view before/after submuscular breast augmentation) is how much breast tissue is present and the quality of the that breast tissue. The only accurate method of determining the quality and quantity of each patient’s breast tissue  as it relates to  optimal implant position is by a thorough physical examination.  Pictures can not convey these important  physical characteristics.

Another factor in determining  optimal implant position is the activity or lifestyle of each patient. Sometimes compromises must be made in order to meet an individual patient’s needs. For example, placing an implant above the muscle in a female bodybuilder may lead to more implant visibility post operatively, but that may be less important than not having the implant move with muscle contraction as would be the case if the implant was under the muscle.

If there is not much  breast tissue present ,  an implant placed on top of the muscle has a  greater tendency to be visible. Being able to see the edge  of a breast implant is not a natural look .  Some patients actually want to have the pronounced appearance of the implant, the so called ” Pamela Lee Anderson” or ” Victoria Secret” model look. This generally refers to the roundness of the upper portion of the breast, but it the visibility of the edge of the implant which imparts this look. Also, sometimes an implant can wrinkle at some  point post operatively, usually months after the surgery. Placing the implant under the muscle allows for an extra layer of soft tissue coverage in order to  hide the implant  and therefore lessen the chance of visible wrinkling.  If the implant is placed under the muscle a slightly larger implant  may be utilized all other factors being equal. This is because along the medial border of the breast  (medial border being over the breast bone side versus the lateral border which is the arm pit side of the breast) there is considerably  less tissue.   Placing the implant  under the muscle  provides additional soft tissue coverage over the medial aspect of the breast and this can lessen the  chance of implant visibility post op.

An implant placed under the muscle may move with muscle contraction. There are  implant selection considerations and surgical techniques which can lessen the tendency for this to occur, but there is no getting around the fact that a submuscular implant may be prone to movement with muscle contraction.  If this does occur post operatively it is   generally minimal and well tolerated in most patients.

Also, if the patients tissue characteristics are poor (a lot of stretch marks, laxity of the skin) an implant placed on top of the muscle may not have the support as if it was placed under the muscle. In the long term , the skin can stretch and the implant drops significantly. This is known as a “ball in sock deformity”.  Imagine placing a cue ball in a tube sock…not a very pleasant visual; and very difficult to correct. Best to avoid this complication.

Also, in selected patients who need a breast lift with breast augmentation, placing the implant under the muscle can be safer in that the blood supply to the nipple area is preserved. If a more extensive mastopexy (breast lift)  procedure needs to be done to produce the most aesthetically pleasing outcome, this is an important consideration in order to avoid the potential complication of skin loss around the nipple region of the breast. Click here to view before/after mastopexy breast augmentation.

Placing the breast implant underneath the muscle also affords slightly more visualization of the breast tissue during mammogragphy. This might be a consideration in those patients who have a family history of breast cancer.

Are there down sides to having a subpectoral breast augmentation which have not been discussed?? of course…there is no free lunch so to speak.  Some of the other  downsides of having subpectoral breast augmentation include the following :  generally somewhat more painful post operatively, requires more time of restricted activity to allow for healing,  has  more swelling and  takes longer to achieve the end results of a naturally appearing breast than a submammary augmentation. All of the “down sides” are well worth it if the patient’s individual characteristic require subpectoral implant placement to avoid complications and undesirable outcomes.

So how do you know whether you should have your breast augmentation surgery utilizing the submammary or the subpectoral route? Start with a thorough examination and consultation by a qualified plastic surgeon who has extensive training and experience in breast augmentation surgery who understands  your needs and desires for breast augmentation which will maximize  your  individual  outcome.  Hope this has shed some light on submammary versus subpectoral breast augmentation. In the end,  the best route for breast augmentation is the one that will maximize your outcome.

 

Silicone vs. Saline…which is better for Breast Augmentation?

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

Many of my patients  who I see in consultation for breast augmentation surgery have questions regarding the benefits of silicone implants vs. saline. This is especially true since the huge media scare  back in the 1990′s claiming that silicone implants were the cause of  a multitude of health related issues.

First of all, silicone implants are safe. The  Institute of Medicine, a branch of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) wrote a position paper in which the safety of silicone breast implants were affirmed. The paper reviewed the research data on the topic, specifically two large studies, one out of Canada and another from the United States in which 10,000 and 15,000 women were followed for years to determine if there were long term health risks to women in whom silicone breast implants were used.  These studies were in progress well before the  alleged health  issues were raised in the infamous class action law  suit .  Silicone  breast implants were found NOT to be associated with any of these health  issues raised in the law suit, specifically auto-immune disorders. The federal judge involved in the litigation chose not to allow these studies to be brought into evidence .  The end result of the law suit was over 3 billion  dolloars  being  awarded against Dow-Corning , a huge chunk of which went to the  plaintiff lawyers.  It has been estimated by the legal community that the attorneys involved averaged $90,000/hour for their time.  Also, after the dust settled so to speak, the FDA got involved and placed a moratorium on the use of silicone breast implants for patients undergoing  breast augmentation strictly for cosmetic reasons (known as primary augmentation). Women undergoing any type of reconstructive procedure, including a breast lift (mastopexy) were allowed to chose silicone implants for their surgery.  My facility had an IRB  to use silicone implants since 1999. (IRB is special permission for  use of silicone implants for data gathering purposes). My patients and  I have seen first hand the remarkable benefits using silicone implants over saline for breast surgery. Not until the fall of 2006, after many years of gathering data did the FDA change their position and allow the use of silicone implants for strictly cosmetic reasons. At that time surgeons had to stress  to patients that the FDA wanted all patients using silicone implants to get an MRI scan three years after their breast augmentation surgery then every two years thereafter in order to determine exactly how long a silicone breast implant would last before they ruptured.  The FDA could not obtain adequate information in this regard and as of August 2011, the FDA has dropped this request with the use of silicone implants. Now woman have the freedom to chose silicone or saline for the breast augmentation surgery  knowing the facts regarding  silicone implant  safety. Science and not political hype and hysteria have won the day so to speak (finally!).

Now that the safety issue has been addressed, I can discuss the benefits as well as the downside of silicone  versus saline implants as they relate to to patient outcome  and  satisfaction.

Regarding the outcome, there is no debating the point that all things considered, silicone filled implants will provide a superior outcome compared to saline.  This is not to say that saline implants do not  do a very nice job  in enhancing the size and contour of  a woman’s breast  ( click here to view saline implant breast augmentation before/after), but saline implants fall short of silicone implants in subtle, but tangible  aspects.  First and foremost, silicone implants   provide  a more realistic and pleasing  feel  compared to saline and  silicone gel filled implants do not wrinkle as much as saline filled implants. (Click here to view silicone implant breast augmentation before/after)

Being able to feel (or more precisely, not being  able to feel)   the  implant post operatively is one of the major advantages of silicone filled breast implant over a saline filled breast implant.  Saline filled breast implants feel like a water balloon (exact words from many of my patients who have had revisional surgery to replace their saline filled breast implants with silicone filled breast implants).  Silicone gel just feels more like breast tissue. This is especially true with patients who have enough native breast tissue to cover the entire breast implant.  Post operatively a breast should feel and move  like a breast. This is much more readily achieved with a silicone filled breast implant than with a saline filled breast implant.

Silicone implants tend not to wrinkle as much as saline implants post operatively. Silicone gel is what is known as a cohesive fill material…the gel “sticks to itself” so to speak. In other words, when the implant is held in a position against gravity, all the gel will not run to the bottom of the implant as is the case for saline.   This  can be a significant difference between the two types of implants  for  patients who have  very little  native breast tissue  .  Generally if you can’t  “pinch an inch” of breast tissue then a silicone implant may be a better option.  Ideally there should be enough breast tissue to sufficiently cover the implant in its entirety. Patients  do not want to see the wrinkled edge of the implant six months post operatively when  she leans forward or along the sides of the breast, which is often the case with saline implants. This is not to say that silicone implants never demonstrate  visible wrinkling, but the incidence of this occurring is reduced with silicone implants.

Because of  silicone implants  decreased tendency not to show wrinkling, silicone implants may  be be placed in the submammary position instead of underneath the muscle in some patients who demonstrate minimal native breast tissue. Saline implants require more breast tissue to be adequately  covered than do silicone implants. Implant position (or placement)  is a whole discussion in of itself which is discussed fully in another blog, but placing the implant on top of the muscle  may allow for  less post operative pain, swelling, and decreases the recovery period.

Both types of implants are prone to failure (leakage or rupture) given sufficient time  after surgery. Implants,  like anything else do not last forever. If saline implants develop a leak, the saline will eventually leak out of the implant and be absorbed by the body.  The saline used to fill the implant is exactly what a patient receives intravenously so it is utilized by the body as fluid.. The breast will become flat or lose its prior shape and volume.   Data suggests 0.7% rupture rate for silicone implants at four years post operatively. It is difficult to quote an exact figure for silicone implant rupture rate over its lifetime, but it is thought to be under 10%.   I use to tell patients  saline implants have a 1-2% per year life of the implant rupture rate. In other words, if you have a saline implant for 10 years, then your implant has a 10 – 20% chance of failing. That seems to be more tangible, but now the manufacturers state  7-9% rupture rate for the lifetime of the saline implant.  If  a ruptured or leaking  saline implant is replaced before the capsule around the implant shrinks, it is a simple matter of replacing the saline implant under a local anesthetic. There is none of the original post operative swelling and discomfort. It is only a matter of caring for a fresh incision for a couple of weeks. If a silicone implant leaks or ruptures, because of the cohesive nature of the fill material  not all of the silicone gel will necessarily come out of the implant shell.  Also,  the silicone gel will not be absorbed by the body like saline.  The silicone gel which leaks out of the implant shell is contained within the scar tissue which normally forms around any breast implant( this scar tissue is known as a capsule). The breast may not deflate and shrink in size as would be the case with a leaking saline implant. Replacing the implant is still recommended, but the bottom line is that there is not urgency as in a saline implant. Some patients chose not to have anything done until problems arise. An MRI is the definitive method of diagnosing  silicone implant rupture, unfortunately 11% of MRI results will be read as a rupture when no rupture exists. This is what is referred to a a “false positive” result and is one reason why the FDA  backed away from recommending MRI followup in patients with silicone  filled breast implants. Patients sometime ask which implant lasts longer. The answer is: no one really  knows. Theoretically the silicone gel acts as a better lubricant inside the implant shell as compared to saline. This property of silicone gel is thought to prevent or at least prolong the occurrence  of  “fold flaw” leaks. A fold flaw in an implant is analogous to what happens if you take a soda can and repetitively  fold it back and forth upon itself. After  several times of doing this the can develops a tear along the crease or fold.  Hence the term “fold flaw”.

Both of the primary United States breast implant  manufacturers  (Allergan and Mentor)  offer comprehensive warranties on their products.  A pair of s aline or silicone implants are considered a single item so that is one implant  fails, the manufacturer will replace both implants free of charge  as lifetime warranties. Within 10 years of surgery, they offer $1200 to the patient to help reduce saline implant replacement surgery costs.  Both  offer additional  warranty in which they will provide an extra $1200 if the patient pays $100 insurance within thirty days of their initial surgery. These surgery costs are only covered for tens years, but the saline implant replacement warranty is for lifetime. Silicone implants will be replaced free of charge as a pair for lifetime just as saline. Both manufacturers have identical surgery cost coverage of $3400 for replacing their silicone implants in case of rupture. This is a lifetime coverage, unlike saline which is only for ten years.

It has  been my experience that if you follow a patient long enough,  some patients appear to  see a change in volume or be able to feel the  saline implant  compared to that of a of the silicone filled implant. This does not occur in all patients but I have had several patients over the years in which the patient and I  both thought that her saline filled implant was leaking or deflating only to find an intact implant at the time of re-operation. For some reason the saline filled implant seems to lose volume even though when I remove the fluid and measure it in the OR, the volume is exactly what I put in it several years before.

Both types of implants obscure mammogram visualization of the breast post operatively to the same degree.  The shell of the implants are identical.   It is the shell of the  implants which interferes with mammographic visualization of the breast. Whether the implant is saline or silicone filled is not relevant.  Whether the implant is above or below the muscle has more influence on how much breast tissue can be visualized on mammogram. Generally an implant below the muscle allows about 20% more mammographic visualization of breast tissue than if the implant is above the muscle.

Silicone filled implants come pre-filled and therefore require a slightly larger incision to place compared to a saline implant.  This slightly longer incision length can be looked at as a down side of silicone implants, but the additional length of the incision is so  inconsequential that this aspect of choosing  one type of implant over the other should really not be a deciding factor.   The larger incision length required for silicone implants  may be a factor however  if a patient is absolutely set on having her breast augmentation surgery via  the periareolar incisional approach. If a patient has a very small areola,  a large silicone filled implant may not be able to squeeze through  such a small opening.  Saline implants are empty and rolled up like as soft tortilla during placement. Once they are in proper position, the saline is added to the correct volume through a removable filler tube. This allows for a smaller length incision when utilizing saline filled implants.

Saline filled implants are adjustable in the OR in that the surgeon can  over fill the saline implant at the time of implantation.  Under  filling is never recommended by implant manufacturers  nor  is over filling by more than 30 cc’s (about an once).  The  adjust-ability of a saline filled implant may seem advantageous   in of  itself, but I do not think it  should not be a reason why a patient should choose  saline implants, all things considered. Silicone implants are pre-filled, but with the variety of widths, volumes and projections available your surgeon can choose an implant that is right for your specific needs.

Both silicone and saline implants come in different profiles (projection) for the same base width of any given implant. This allows for customizing outcome without having to resort to using an excessively wide implant. These implant profiles are demonstrated to each patient during their initial consult so each patient can visualize the difference. Saline high profile implants impart too much of a “ball” effect post operatively and I have stopped using high profile saline implants in my practice. Silicone high profile implants , on the other hand are fantastic options in the properly selected patient and are used extensively in my practice.

My practice experience has been consistent with the world wide plastic surgery literature in that there is no increased incidence of abnormal capsule formation with silicone filled breast implants compared to saline filled breast implants.  Many years ago this was an issue, but the current  manufacturing technology is so superior with  silicone gel filled implants that the issues of gel leakage causing abnormally hard, painful breast months to years after implantation is no longer a valid argument.

The final word on whether silicone filled breast implants are superior to saline filled implants come from the patients who have had the experience with both types of breast implants. I have  dozens and dozens of patients who have had saline filled implants initially but were  later exchanged for silicone filled breast implants. In each one of these patients the response was identical: my patients preferred silicone over saline. They made comments like “they (the silicone implants) feel like me, ” I can sleep on my stomach and I don’t feel like I’m on water balloons”, “my gynecologist couldn’t even tell I had implants” and the comments go on and on. Not one patient has ever voiced regret in changing from saline to silicone filled breast implants.

If there is a down side to silicone  breast implants it would be that they do cost more than saline, and this cost is universally passed onto the patient; sorry. Generally silicone implants cost about $1,000 more than their saline counter parts.

My  responsibility as your surgeon  is to fully inform  each patient of the risks and benefits of each type of implant and to make recommendations as to which type of  implant will provide the patient with the best outcome. The final decision  to use saline or silicone implants is always left up to patient.

breast asymmetry

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

Can breast asymmetry be corrected by breast augmentation surgery? This  is a question often asked by my patients and the answer is “yes”.

Many women  are  naturally larger on one side compared to the other.  Based on each patient’s individual characteristics, a surgeon has the option of picking implants to address each patient’s  asymmetry  based on the implants base width, volume, and projection.  Various  profile implants  are now available which can successfully correct breast asymmetry.

Profile refers to the projection of  an implant.  An implant can have vastly different shape given  identical volume based on whether the implant is a low profile, moderate profile or a high profile.  One of the breast implant manufacturers which I routinely use  offers   three different profiles for any given width of an implant.  For instance, an 11.7 centimeter base width silicone  implant  in low profile option has a volume of 240 cc’s,  in moderate profile a volume of 287 cc’s,  and in high profile 375 cc’s.  With this type of direct comparison it is easier  for a patient to visualize how important implant profile is when choosing an implant based on each patient’s individual characteristics.  I routinely demonstrate this comparison of implant profiles and dimensions to patients during their initial consult  so that they have a firm understanding that implant volume is not the most important factor when choosing an implant.  Projection of the implant is very important  to the overall outcome and final shape of the breast after surgery, especially if asymmetry is an issue. An implant of a greater projection can make up for the discrepancy  of native breast tissue from side to side, thereby correcting  pre-existing breast asymmetry.

Sometimes the base width of one breast is greater than the other.  If the patient demonstrates roughly similar or equal amount of native breast tissue, the surgeon can choose appropriate implants to make up for this discrepancy.

Many times it is a combination of breast base width as well as breast native tissue which accounts for the  apparent breast asymmetry. In these cases, it is somewhat more challenging for the surgeon to choose the  implants. In these instances,  breast implant sizers  can be utilized. Click here for before/after

A sizer is a temporary implant, either saline filled or silicone filled, which the surgeon can  use at the time of surgery to  determine the best implant for each patient’s particular needs.  This adds to the time, work, and therefore overall cost of breast augmentation surgery. This additional cost is well worth the effort if you have a discernible  breast size difference from side to side.

I just operated on a patient last week in which asymmetrical sized implants were utilized based on the use of sizers  in the operating room. Her outcome was almost perfect symmetry post operatively.

Breast implant size and shape  is just one of the many factors a surgeon should consider when performing breast augmentation surgery, especially if breast asymmetry is an issue. If you are considering breast augmentation surgery, be sure  that your surgeon has the experience and training to explain  to you all of your options based on your individual needs. This is especially true if breast asymmetry is one of your major concerns in considering breast augmentation surgery.

Breast Augmentatioin or Breast Lift??

Thursday, November 11th, 2010

I saw a patient today and she stated ” I would like a breast augmentation, but I don’t know if I need a breast lift” ( also known as mastopexy). This is a very common inquiry, especially among women who have had children.

The short answer as to whether breast augmentation alone is enough to enhance the size and shape of the breast without a mastopexy (breast lift) is to look at the position of the nipple relative to the inframammary fold ( the crease where the breast meets the chest wall under the breast). If the nipple is at least level to this crease then a properly chosen implant and a straightforward breast augmentation maybe all that is needed. There are two ways to determine this.

First, stand sideways to a mirror (without any clothing of course). The crease at the edge of the breast in front of the armpit is the lateral aspect of the inframammary crease. If the nipple is at least level to this crease or above it, then a breast augmentation alone may be suitable to achieve your goals regarding breast enhancement, and you may not require a breast lift (mastopexy). If the nipple is below this crease then a mastopexy ( breast lift) is needed.

The second way of determining the proper level of the nipple is to place a finger at the inframammary crease directly under the nipple on the under surface of the breast and transpose this spot to the front of the breast. (probably easier and more precise if an experienced surgeon makes this determination for you). Once again, if the nipple is at the level of the inframammary crease or above, then a breast augmentaion alone maybe all that is required.

Either way, it is the position of the nipple relative to the inframammary crease that determines whether or not a straightforward breast augmentation or an augmentation with a mastopexy (breast lit) is needed. What you need to avoid is the ill fated recommendation of a too large of an implant to address breast ptosis. In my experience, this occurs far too often by less than ethical cosmetic surgeons who place their financial interests before the long term health and happiness of their patients. An excessively large implant can provide the necessary “lift” to the breast in the short run, (and thereby avoid the mastopexy scarring immediately post operatively); but long term this can be a disaster. I know, I’ve taken care of plenty of patients from other practices where this very thing has occurred. These patients are not happy with their long term results, and it is a difficult (and expensive) situation to correct. Do not allow yourself to be talked into this approach if your physical characteristics make you a candidate for a mastopexy in addition to an augmentation. It is always easier to go to a little larger implant in the future than it is to correct the long term consequences of an overly large implant.

Sometimes a woman has what is termed “psuedo ptosis” or “involutional ptsosis” of the breast. These patients generally have had children and their breasts have lost volume from the upper portion of the breast. There is alot of lax skin and the upper portion of the breast has the classic “scooped out” appearance. In these instances, the patient may appear to need a mastopexy to the untrained eye. (But you have just been “trained” as to how to determine if a mastopexy is needed!). In this instance (as long as the nipple is at least at the level of the inframammary fold on physical examination), then a high profile implant may provide the necessary correction and give the patient a very natural and satisfactory enhancement without the extra scarring or financial expense of mastopexy surgery.

I actually performed this very same surgery yesterday. I was able to markedly enhance the size and shape of the breast without any additional scarring on the front of the breast utilizing what is known as “minimal scar” or “periarerolar” mastopexy technique. The incisional scar was limited to around the areolar (the pigmented skin around the nipple) for the breast lift (in addition to the scar within the inframammary fold to place the implant …yes, I could have placed the implant through the areolar incisional scar, but her areola was too small to allow for placement of the necessary implant. This is yet another detail that must be determined by your surgeon based on your unique physical characteristics. Once again, no one technique fits all patients!) At any rate, this patient was able to obtain not only the the upper breast fullness which she desired but she also was able to correct the breast ptosis with minimal additonal scarring. Not all patients are suitable candidates for this type of “minimal scar” mastopexy, but it is a very good technique for surgeons who are trained and experienced in its use.

The surgery to correct breast ptosis (and the amount of necessary incisional scarring) is very much dependent on the physical characteristics of each patient.
Once again, sometimes a properly chosen implant and a straight forward breast augmentation may be all that is required; other times a mastopexy must be performed in addition to the breast augmentation. It is impossible to make this determination over the telephone, so please be patient if Mary Ann can not give you all of the answers you hope for over the phone. The only way to know for sure is to have a consultation with a properly trained and highly experienced plastic surgeon. Hope this has been helpful, and thanks for your time. Tim Bradley, MD

Breast Implant Revision

Friday, October 29th, 2010

I had a consultation yesterday regarding Breast implant revision. The patient had saline breast implants placed more than 12 years ago and was interested in her options for having the saline implants exchanged for silicone implants. She also wanted her breast contour improved stating that she  would like  to have her breasts made “more perky” ( a very common request, especially when dealing with implants which are this old).  She wanted to be “slightly larger” as well.  When considering these questions and options, the surgeon has to be precise in both pre-operative planning as well as the surgical execution.

Some of the more important aspects to be considered in the pre-operative planning takes into account the patient’s tissue characteristics (has there been weight gain or loss since the primary surgery? The laxity of the breast tissue, the quality/quantity of the breast). Also, has there been abnormal capsule formation (capsule is the scar tissue which forms around every breast implant. If there is an abnormal or excessive amount, the breast can become firm, displaced, even painful).  While this list is not all inclusive by any means, it will serve to highlight the important aspects in this particular consult.

This patient did not need a breast lift (ie mastopexy) to provide her with “perky breasts”. She had developed significant capsules around the implants which caused the implants to displace superiorly. This  in turn caused the “snoopy dog” deformity where the breast tissue falls off the implant. The surgical intervention required to correct this is a surgical capsulotomy (cutting and releasing the scar tissue. A capsulectomy is the surgical removal of the scar tissue). By releasing the scar tissue the implant resumes its proper position and the contour of the breast is markedly improved.  In this patient a mastopexy would have been unnecessary and would have led to needless scarring and expense.  Also, release of the scar tissue would be necessary if larger implants are to be utilized. If this is not done, the implants will be abnormally firm immediately post-op and will continue to be a problem. There is no substitute for correct surgical planning in these types of cases.

Taking in to account  this patient’s tissue laxity, a high profile implant would provide more projection of the breast, thus increasing improving contour even more.  High profile implants were not an option for patients  many years ago. Just choosing the right implant shape can often times be enough to avoid mastopexy surgery. What a patient should avoid is going with an excessively large implant in order to obtain the projection to avoid a mastopexy. This type of surgical intervention can lead to disaster long term which may be very difficult to correct in the long run.

I hope I have provided alittle insight into the options regarding breast implant revision surgery. Of course the only way to know what each patient’s particular needs are is to have a detailed consultation with a qualified surgeon.  Thanks for your time. Tim Bradley, M D