Mark L Jewell1, James L Jewell. 1. Oregon Health Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. mjewell@teleport.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there have been reports of single-surgeon outcomes with highly cohesive, form-stable silicone gel implants in women undergoing primary breast augmentation, there has been only one study published that compares the outcomes between the Allergan 410 and the Mentor CPG devices. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study is to compare outcomes in each cohort and to determine if quality systems and processes would have an impact on lowering the surgical revision rate, as compared to published reports for round gel implants and form-stable implants. METHODS: Patients selected for the study were required to meet predefined inclusion criteria and general indications for breast augmentation. All subjects were treated uniformly with extensive informed consent prior to surgery. The entire process of breast augmentation (patient assessment, informed consent, the surgical procedure itself and postoperative instructions) was identical between the two groups. Patients were not randomized, as the studies did not start at the same time. The process for management of each patient was based on adaptation of the Toyota Production System and Lean Manufacturing, with emphasis on achieving operational excellence in the use of planning templates for surgery, including accurate management of patient expectations regarding size outcome. RESULTS: Outcomes data included physical breast measurements, quality of life metrics, and patient/surgeon satisfaction assessment. Adverse events were compared against published data for breast implants. Follow-up ranged between 20-77 months (Allergan 410) and 16-77 months (Mentor CPG). The outcome data indicate that these devices produce natural-appearing breasts with extremely low aggregate reoperation rate (4.2%). Only 0.8% of the reoperations were attributable to surgeon-related factors. There were no reoperations to correct mismanaged size expectations during the course of each study. There were 13 pregnancies and no difficulties with lactation were reported. Rippling (lateral/medial, palpable and/or visible) was encountered in both cohorts. The Mentor CPG cohort had a fivefold greater incidence of rippling (37.3% versus 7.6% in Allergan 410 cohort). This was highly statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Provided that there is adherence to core principles and avoidance of errors in planning, patient expectations, and surgery, highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants can deliver excellent long term outcomes in primary breast augmentation in a diverse patient population. The impact of quality processes such as Toyota Production System and Lean Manufacturing was substantive in delivering operational excellence in primary breast augmentation.
BACKGROUND: Although there have been reports of single-surgeon outcomes with highly cohesive, form-stable silicone gel implants in women undergoing primary breast augmentation, there has been only one study published that compares the outcomes between the Allergan 410 and the Mentor CPG devices. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study is to compare outcomes in each cohort and to determine if quality systems and processes would have an impact on lowering the surgical revision rate, as compared to published reports for round gel implants and form-stable implants. METHODS:Patients selected for the study were required to meet predefined inclusion criteria and general indications for breast augmentation. All subjects were treated uniformly with extensive informed consent prior to surgery. The entire process of breast augmentation (patient assessment, informed consent, the surgical procedure itself and postoperative instructions) was identical between the two groups. Patients were not randomized, as the studies did not start at the same time. The process for management of each patient was based on adaptation of the Toyota Production System and Lean Manufacturing, with emphasis on achieving operational excellence in the use of planning templates for surgery, including accurate management of patient expectations regarding size outcome. RESULTS: Outcomes data included physical breast measurements, quality of life metrics, and patient/surgeon satisfaction assessment. Adverse events were compared against published data for breast implants. Follow-up ranged between 20-77 months (Allergan 410) and 16-77 months (Mentor CPG). The outcome data indicate that these devices produce natural-appearing breasts with extremely low aggregate reoperation rate (4.2%). Only 0.8% of the reoperations were attributable to surgeon-related factors. There were no reoperations to correct mismanaged size expectations during the course of each study. There were 13 pregnancies and no difficulties with lactation were reported. Rippling (lateral/medial, palpable and/or visible) was encountered in both cohorts. The Mentor CPG cohort had a fivefold greater incidence of rippling (37.3% versus 7.6% in Allergan 410 cohort). This was highly statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Provided that there is adherence to core principles and avoidance of errors in planning, patient expectations, and surgery, highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants can deliver excellent long term outcomes in primary breast augmentation in a diverse patient population. The impact of quality processes such as Toyota Production System and Lean Manufacturing was substantive in delivering operational excellence in primary breast augmentation.