RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With the recent association between breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, breast implants have become the focus of many warnings. Surgeons and health professionals are not involved in all the processes of the manufacturing and distribution of this product. Not all countries have breast implant factories that are easy for surgeons to visit and better understand the manufacturing process. METHODS: A questionnaire about breast implant manufacturing and distribution was validated in consensus and form. Two plastic surgeons visited eight factories and administered the questionnaire in the presence of a photographer, who documented that the questionnaire was answered in the same way for all visits. Once the visitors finished obtaining the information (questionnaire responses and video recording), this information was validated by a different member of a safety committee in Mexico. For the observations to be considered valid, the information from the questionnaire and the video must be presented. RESULTS: We visited eight factories: three in France (Sebbin, Arion and Eurosilicone), two in Costa Rica (Allergan and Motiva), one in Scotland (Nagor), one in Germany (Polytech) and one in Korea (Bellagel). In four factories (Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor and Sebbin), the information on the process for manufacturing an implant was observed and recorded (validated). The quality laboratory was visited, and video recording was performed in six factories (Bellagel, Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor, Polytech and Sebbin). CONCLUSION: It was possible to observe and verify that most of the companies that distribute breast implants in Mexico perform their manufacturing processes according to ISO standards. A breast implant registry can help people further understand how BIA-ALCL will behave in the future and allow more tests to better understand this pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Assuntos
Implante Mamário , Implantes de Mama , Implante Mamário/efeitos adversos , Implantes de Mama/efeitos adversos , França , Alemanha , Humanos , México , República da CoreiaRESUMO
In the existing reports on combined procedures of abdominoplasty with Cesarean section or natural delivery, a high incidence of complications and poor aesthetic results are reported. We conducted a survey with the participation of 61 plastic surgeons who performed this procedure in 808 patients, with an average of 13.24 procedures per surgeon. In 783 procedures (96.9% of the cases), the combination was with Cesarean section and 25 procedures (3.13% of cases) were combined with vaginal delivery. The plastic surgery procedures were as follows: 242 abdominoplasty procedures (29.95%), 210 abdominoplasty plus liposuction procedures (25.99%), 18 mini abdominoplasty procedures (2.22%), 121 mini abdominoplasty and liposuction procedures (14.97%), and 217 liposuction procedures (26.85%). The following complications were reported: seroma in 255 cases (31.57%), thrombosis in 212 (26.23%), infection in 170 (21.03%), skin necrosis in 127 (15.71%), and hematoma in 42 (5.19%). There were three deaths due to thrombosis (0.4%). There were redundancy skin abdominal wall defects in 336 (41.66%) cases, unaesthetic scars in 291 (36.11%), abdominal wall defects in 134 (16.58%), unpleasant contours in 22 (2.72%), and rotational folds in 22 (2.72%). Fifty-five (90.16%) surgeons decided to stop delivering babies with these practices. The combination of abdominoplasty with Cesarean section or natural delivery has a high incidence of complications and poor aesthetic results; therefore, we make a strong recommendation to avoid this practice before the patient reaches sixth month postpartum.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 the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Assuntos
Abdominoplastia/métodos , Cesárea/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/patologia , Cirurgia Plástica/métodos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Abdominoplastia/efeitos adversos , Cesárea/efeitos adversos , Terapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , México , Segurança do Paciente , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/fisiopatologia , Gravidez , Medição de Risco , Gestão da Segurança , Sociedades Médicas , Cirurgia Plástica/efeitos adversos , Ferida Cirúrgica/cirurgiaRESUMO
Recent studies have shown a relationship between lymphoma and breast implants. We performed a meta-analysis about this problem. We found 80 cases, 50 of which were reported in the United States (62.5%). The average age was 52 years. The average time between breast implant surgery and lymphoma was 11 years. Forty-one percent of the breast implants were silicone, 42.19% were saline and 15.8% were unknown. The coverage of the breast implants was texturized in 21.3% and unknown in 78%. The most common brands were McGhan and Mentor. In 72.6% of the cases, the brand was unknown. The clinical findings were seroma (67.33%), nodes (13.8%), mass (22.1%), other (11.7%) and unknown (32%). The most common surgical treatment was capsulectomy and breast implant removal. In 97% of the cases, ALK was negative and 3% were positive. The most common marker was CD30. The most common chemotherapy regimen was CHOP. Three patients died. Two of the patients had extracapsular extension of the disease and breast cancer history. Lymphoma related with the breast implant was a different type of lymphoma, and in most cases, it was less aggressive. The disease was confined to the capsule. Few patients developed aggressive disease, were extracapsular and showed bad prognosis.