If you are considering breast augmentation for the first time, you want to be sure that you do it right. You obviously want to avoid the emotional distress, inconvenience, and expense of having to have an early revision. And doing it right the first time is the best chance to set you up for having a result that will be as long lasting and beautiful as possible.
There are many women with serious and even permanent problems because of errors made with their first breast augmentation. Dr. Teitelbaum has learned from these women which choices in the first surgery can set a patient up for problems later. Using these principles, he was asked by an implant manufacturer to create an educational curriculum to teach other surgeons how to reduce their revision rates. And he is coauthor on a landmark paper that sets guidelines for surgeons to reduce the number of operations a patient will have in her lifetime.
Many surgeons approach this surgery with a very short-sighted view of their outcomes. Dr Teitelbaum recognizes the importance of achieving beautiful results not just for a year or two after the surgery, but for a patient’s entire life. While a surgeon that operates on a patient today is not technically responsible for a patient five years from now, Dr. Teitelbaum nonetheless recognizes that decisions made today will have effects years from now, and therefore counsels patients to make decisions that take this into account. He will always discuss with patients not just the short term effects of their choices, but what will happen to their breasts over time.
Other plastic surgeons refer Dr. Teitelbaum the most challenging cases that need revision. Having done so many of these revisions, Dr. Teitelbaum was asked to write a textbook chapter for an upcoming plastic surgery textbook entitled “Revision of Breast Augmentation.”
As complex as first-time breast augmentation is, revision is substantially more difficult. Patients’ anatomy may have been distorted with the past surgery, old records may have been lost, and tissues may have been thinned, stretched, or in other ways damaged. Worst, patients are frustrated, angry, and fearful after having spent a large sum of money and undergone one or more operations for a result that is totally unacceptable.
Dr. Teitelbaum understands these issues, and is aware of the spectrum of options to handle these problems, both “tried and true” and the new or experimental. For instance, he has a large experience using the cohesive or gummy bear implants, which can be helpful in many types of revisions because of their low likelihood of developing any visible folds or ripples. He is on the advisory board of a company named Lifecell which makes a special material derived from human or pig skin, working to find the optimal way to solve the most difficult augmentation problems. He is one of the pioneers of a new technique called the “neo retropectoral pocket,” which is a powerful and very effective technique that can be frequently applied in breast augmentation revision. He has coauthored a paper on using it to correct symmastia (the so-called “uni-boob,”) one of the most difficult problems to correct.
This remains the most frequent cause for secondary reoperation. The best way to treat it is to avoid it in the first place. But if it occurs, it is important to take all the steps necessary to reduce its chance of recurrence. Complete removal of scar tissue, using a “low-bleed” implant, considering textured or cohesive implants, bloodless and gentle surgery, early post-op motion, and antibiotic irrigations are the cornerstones of treatment. Similarly, there are a few patients for whom recurrent contracture is unavoidable, and recognizing these situations and discussing whether or not to proceed is important as well. The most beautiful women in the world all have asymmetry of their breasts. But sometimes an implant ends up so misplaced that it makes the asymmetry unacceptable and even causes deformities. The most common asymmetry is when one implant is too low. But they can be too close together, essentially joining in the center. This is known as symmastia (aka the uni-boob deformity.) Or the implants can lay to far to the sides, widening cleavage and distressing patients by how far they fall out when they lay down. Treatment for all of these problems can be done by creating a new pocket. For instance, if an implant is in front of the muscle, a more even new pocket can be made behind the muscle, and vice versa. But if the pocket is already behind the muscle and there is good reason to stay behind the muscle, for instance to maintain good coverage over the implant, then one either closes off the lowered pocket with a technique called capsulorraphy or with something called a capsular flap. The newest way to handle this is with a technique called the neosubpectoral pocket, which creates a new pocket between the scar tissue and the muscle, using the strength of the scar tissue to correct the pocket malposition. Sometimes an implant stays fixed in place and the breast can slide off it, drooping as a result of gravity. At other times, the implant itself falls down, stretching out the lower skin of the breast, which is known as “bottoming out.” These problems most frequently occur in women who had large implants and/or pre-existing stretched skin and perhaps droopy breasts before they even had their implants. That could have been the result of their own development, weight fluctuations, or pregnancies. Very often, these patients will recall being told that they needed a lift when they first had their augmentation, but decided against it because they didn’t want the scar. Each of these cases is very different, and care needs to be individualized. Many patients complain that they can see or feel folds, ripples, or knuckles of implants. This happens mostly with saline, but it can even happen with silicone implants. If tissue is thin enough, this can even happen with the cohesive gel gummy bear implants, though that happens less frequently. Since he is an expert with the cohesive implants, many patients with this problem seek out Dr. Teitelbaum. While these implants do have an advantage over other implants for this situation, the underlying problem for most of these women is the thinness of their soft tissue over the implants. All of the patients with the worst rippling problems are extremely thin. The cornerstone of improving patients in this category is trying to get as much tissue coverage as possible, such as switching implants to behind the muscle if they are in front. Oftentimes, these patients have been behind the muscle, but they have stretched in the lower part of their breast, and by lifting the lower part of their breast, more of the implant can be kept under the muscle. Other techniques, such as using Strattice or Alloderm tissue implants can be very helpful in these challenging cases. This is an unfortunate reason for surgery. If there is adequate preoperative discussion and planning, this should be largely unavoidable, but it can still happen. Dr. Teitelbaum believes that implants should be sized at the first surgery according to what fits a patient’s particular breasts. Too big will look unnatural and stretch the breast, and too small will leave the upper breast underfilled and the breast looking empty and disproportional. So, if the implant chosen for the first surgery is that which was suggested – on these objective terms – then to change the size later would be illogical. That being said, sometimes patients go larger or smaller than was suggested to them initially, or other patients change their mind about what they want. This operation is not always as simple as just removing one and replacing with a bigger or smaller size. It can require some work to increase or decrease the size of the pocket, depending upon your tissues and the change in size. The most important thing to recognize is that if you are wanting bigger and bigger implants because your skin has a tendency to stretch, you need to stop and consider whether you should stop and have a lift, rather than progressively going larger, which inevitably will mean more stretch and emptiness later…one step forward and two steps back. With the end of the 14 year moratorium on silicone in the United States ending in November of 2006, there are hundreds of thousands of saline patients in the United States who at one time or another will come in to have their implants replaced. Despite evidence demonstrating that the fears that lead to the moratorium in 1992 were unfounded, some women nonetheless are suspicious of silicone. But most of the patients Dr. Teitelbaum sees want to have silicone. Some saline patients are bothered by firmness and roundness if their saline implants were highly filled, while others are bothered by upper pole emptiness, sloshiness, and ripples if their implants were underfilled. With saline, there was no perfect fill, and switching to silicone frequently fixes these problems. Other women have a saline deflation, and come in after one breast “disappeared” over a few days, and have both implants switched, either to saline or to silicone. Many are coming in now years after their saline, asking now to either replace their saline implants or get silicone implants so that a deflation does not occur at a time that is inconvenient for them. Some women asking to switch to silicone have nothing really wrong, except perhaps wanting a little softer and more natural of a feel, and something that is less perceptible to their intimate partners.
View the original article here