[Effectiveness comparison of endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation].

Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi

Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P. R. China.

Published: July 2024

Objective: To explore the surgical technique and preliminary safety and aesthetic results of endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation for patients.

Methods: The clinical data of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation between April 2020 and January 2024 and met the selection criteria was retrospective analysed. The patients' age ranged from 33 to 73 years, with a mean of 50.4 years, and the body mass index ranged from 16.8 to 26.6 kg/m , with a mean of 21.5 kg/m . They were all bilaterally injected with Amazingel, and the time between initial injections and surgery ranged from 17 to 26 years, with a mean of 21.4 years. Early safety was evaluated by the incidence of early postoperative complications, and early aesthetic results were evaluated using Harris scores (including breast shape satisfaction, sensation satisfaction, and elasticity satisfaction) at 3 months after operation.

Results: There were 9 cases underwent Amazingel removal (group A) and 16 cases underwent Amazingel removal with immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation (group B). Intraoperative removal of Amazingel ranged from 808 to 1 285 mL, with a mean of 1 050.7 mL; the mass of the capsule removed ranged from 36 to 169 g, with a mean of 103.6 g; and a gross anatomical prosthesis was used with a median size of 345 mL (range, 315-355 mL). The operation time ranged from 95 to 395 minutes, with a mean of 194.2 minutes; and the cost of the procedure ranged from 8000to 91 000 yuan, with a mean of 33 000 yuan. Patients had a median follow-up time of 22.7 months (range, 3.0-48.1 months). There was 1 case of intraoperative skin burn due to the operation of the electric scalpel, which healed naturally after operation without flap necrosis. There was no adverse conditions such as prosthesis outline showing, ripple sign, and capsular contracture during follow-up; a small amount of Amazingel residue was found in 2 patients at 1 year after operation. The Harris score at 3 months after operation was used to evaluate the early aesthetic results, and the breast shape, elasticity, and sensation satisfaction of group A were lower than group B, but the differences between the two groups were not significant ( >0.05).

Conclusion: Endoscopic removal of injectable Amazingel with/without immediate prepectoral implant-based breast augmentation is safe in the early stage with good aesthetic results, and it is also recommended that patients who had the indications for combined immediate breast augmentation after removal to rebuild the breast appearance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11252681PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202404032DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prepectoral implant-based
20
implant-based breast
20
breast augmentation
20
endoscopic removal
16
removal injectable
16
injectable amazingel
16
amazingel with/without
16
with/without prepectoral
16
amazingel
9
breast
9

Similar Publications

Risk prediction of implant loss following implant-based breast reconstruction: a population-based study.

Plast Reconstr Surg

December 2024

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Introduction: Implant loss following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is a serious complication, resulting in re-operations, patient suffering, and a significant decrease in quality of life. This study aimed to create a validated risk prediction model for implant loss after IBBR using perioperative risk factors.

Methods: Patients who had undergone either a two-stage or a direct-to-implant postmastectomy IBBR were identified from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is increasingly favored over autologous reconstruction due to its procedural simplicity and recovery benefits. Conducting this reconstruction using either the subpectoral or prepectoral planes has varied aesthetic outcomes. This study utilizes VECTRA XT 3D imaging to objectively assess breast symmetry differences between these surgical techniques.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In alloplastic breast reconstruction, the choice of implant positioning and the selection of periprosthetic devices is a critical and challenging decision. Surgeons must navigate between various biologic and synthetic meshes, including acellular dermal matrices (ADM). This study aimed to propose a simple selection tool for periprosthetic devices in prepectoral breast reconstruction.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Implant-based breast reconstruction has been essential since the 1960s, offering a faster and less invasive alternative to autologous reconstruction. Recent innovations-including direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, advancements in surgical planes, synthetic meshes, and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) neurotization-have improved patient outcomes. This review explores these developments, analyzing their impact on breast reconstruction over the past two decades.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Does the Omission of Cefazolin in Irrigation Solution Affect Outcomes in Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction?

Aesthetic Plast Surg

December 2024

Department of Plastic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, South Korea.

Purpose: The widely used triple-antibiotics irrigation solution, comprising cefazolin, gentamycin, and povidone-iodine solution, has been employed for preventing infection and capsular contracture in implant-based breast reconstruction. However, potential overlapping in the coverage of such antimicrobial effects and the recent emergence of cefazolin-resistant gram-positive bacteria has prompted concerns regarding the efficacy of routine use of cefazolin in irrigation solutions. This study aims to evaluate clinical safety of omitting cefazolin from the traditional triple-antibiotic irrigation solution.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!