D Batiukov1, V Podgaiski2, D Ladutko3,4. 1. Medical Center "Antes Med", Krasnoarmejskaja Str. 32, Minsk, 220030, Belarus. dmitry.batiukov@gmail.com. 2. Belorussian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Brovki 3, b. 3, Minsk, 220013, Belarus. 3. Medical Center "Antes Med", Krasnoarmejskaja Str. 32, Minsk, 220030, Belarus. 4. Department of Microsurgery, Minsk Regional Hospital, 223040, Lesnoe, Minsk Region, Belarus.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bottoming out; Breast augmentation; High-riding implants; Implant malposition; Polyurethane implants; Secondary breast surgery