Literature DB >> 11964998

A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics.

John B Tebbetts1.   

Abstract

Primary breast augmentation patients have widely varying characteristics of their breast envelope, parenchyma, and adjacent tissues. When preoperative breast implant selection does not specifically address critical soft-tissue parameters individual to each patient, risks of complications increase. Complications that occur from failure to reconcile a patient's wishes for breast size with her individual tissue characteristics include skin stretch and thinning, ptosis, atrophy of parenchyma, implant edge or shell visibility, implant edge or shell palpability, visible traction rippling, "bottoming" deformities, and lateral implant displacement with widening of the intermammary distance. Previous dimensional systems address implant parenchyma base width relative to implant base width, but no published system adequately addresses or attempts to quantitate the third dimension, tissue stretch, that is critical to estimate amount of fill necessary in a wide range of breast and tissue types. This system addresses the tissue characteristics (T) of the envelope (E), the parenchyma (P), and the implant (I), and the dynamics (D) of implant and filler distribution that affect soft tissues. The acronym TEPID summarizes the key factors that determine aesthetic results and occurrence of problems and reoperations following breast augmentation. This simple, efficient, and clinically practical system focuses on only three tissue measurements to estimate implant volume required to fill each patient's existing breast envelope, on the basis of her individual tissue characteristics: base width of the parenchyma, anterior pull skin stretch, and areola- and/or nipple-to-inframammary-fold distance measured under maximal stretch. The surgeon then adjusts initial volume to address differences in degree of skin stretch (anterior pull skin stretch) and contribution of the patient's existing parenchyma to stretched envelope fill, and to address differences in implant dimensions and filler distribution dynamics. To base decisions of implant pocket location on quantifiable soft-tissue coverage thickness, the system measures soft-tissue pinch thickness of the upper pole and at the inframammary fold. Surgeon time required to measure, estimate, and make preoperative implant selection decisions is less than 5 minutes. This system evolved from compiling and reviewing measurements and results from 330 primary breast augmentations from 1996 to 1999, including round and anatomic implant types with smooth shells and two different textured shells. The TEPID system was then used concurrently with the previous dimensional system for patient tissue evaluation and preoperative implant selection in 627 consecutive primary augmentation cases over a 3-year period from January of 1998 to January of 2001. Implant selection that did not comply with the parameters of the system was necessary in only eight cases. The TEPID system is a simple, efficient, and clinically practical method that allows surgeons to base implant selection on clinically quantifiable, individual patient tissue characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11964998     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200204010-00030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  18 in total

1.  Commentary on: Challenging Breast Augmentations: The Influence of Preoperative Anatomical Features on the Final Result.

Authors:  George J Zambacos
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 4.283

Review 2.  Outcomes Utilizing Inspira Implants in Primary Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Authors:  Anne Warren Peled; Joseph J Disa
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Decisional pathways in breast augmentation: how to improve outcomes through accurate pre-operative planning.

Authors:  Maurizio B Nava; Nicola Rocco; Gianfranco Tunesi; Giuseppe Catanuto; Alberto Rancati; Julio Dorr
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-04

4.  Contribution of breast density to the volume of the augmented breast: A preliminary study.

Authors:  Sean M Hill; Franziska Huettner; John Murray; Eric Elwood; Rebecca Barrick; Glyn Jones
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2011

5.  Adipose tissue derived stem cells: in vitro and in vivo analysis of a standard and three commercially available cell-assisted lipotransfer techniques.

Authors:  Rossana Domenis; Lara Lazzaro; Sarah Calabrese; Damiano Mangoni; Annarita Gallelli; Evgenia Bourkoula; Ivana Manini; Natascha Bergamin; Barbara Toffoletto; Carlo A Beltrami; Antonio P Beltrami; Daniela Cesselli; Pier Camillo Parodi
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 6.832

6.  Application of "CD-4" theory for determining the width of implant in breast augmentation.

Authors:  Jie Cai; Yang Zhou
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 2.628

7.  Can Acne Affect Prognosis of Breast Augmentation?

Authors:  Leonidas Pavlidis; Georgia A Spyropoulou; Antonis Tsimponis; Efterpi Demiri
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-06-20

8.  Breast augmentation.

Authors:  Sachin M Shridharani; Justin L Bellamy; Mark M Mofid; Navin K Singh
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2013-06-13

9.  Porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix in primary augmentation mammoplasty to minimize implant-related complications and achieve an internal mastopexy: a case series.

Authors:  Andrew Kornstein
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2013-12-30

10.  Subpectoral Implant Repositioning With Partial Capsule Preservation: Treating the Long-Term Complications of Subglandular Breast Augmentation.

Authors:  Adam T Hauch; Cameron S Francis; Jourdain D Artz; Paul E Chasan
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2021-03-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.