1.Response to Letter: Evolving Trends in Breast Surgery: Oncoplastic to Onco-Aesthetic Surgery.
Amtul Razzaq CARMICHAEL ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2017;44(1):86-86
No abstract available.
Breast*
2.The Clinical Implications of Poly Implant Prothese Breast Implants: An Overview.
Umar WAZIR ; Abdul KASEM ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2015;42(1):4-10
Mammary implants marketed by Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) were found to contain industrial grade silicone and this caused heightened anxiety and extensive publicity regarding their safety in humans. These implants were used in a large number of patients worldwide for augmentation or breast reconstruction. We reviewed articles identified by searches of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases up to May 2014 using the terms: "PIP", "Poly Implant Prothese", "breast implants" and "augmentation mammoplasty" "siloxanes" or "silicone". In addition the websites of regulating bodies in Europe, USA, and Australia were searched for reports related to PIP mammary implants. PIP mammary implants are more likely to rupture than other implants and can cause adverse effects in the short to the medium term related to the symptoms of rupture such as pain, lumps in the breast and axilla and anxiety. Based on peer-reviewed published studies we have calculated an overall rupture rate of 14.5% (383/2,635) for PIP implants. However, there is no evidence that PIP implant rupture causes long-term adverse health effects in humans so far. Silicone lymphadenopathy represents a foreign body reaction and should be treated conservatively. The long-term adverse effects usually arise from inappropriate extensive surgery, such as axillary lymph node dissection or extensive resection of breast tissue due to silicone leakage.
Anxiety
;
Australia
;
Axilla
;
Breast
;
Breast Implantation
;
Breast Implants*
;
Europe
;
Female
;
Foreign-Body Reaction
;
Humans
;
Lymph Node Excision
;
Lymphatic Diseases
;
Mammaplasty
;
Prosthesis Failure
;
Rupture
;
Silicone Gels
3.Capsular Contracture after Breast Augmentation: An Update for Clinical Practice.
Hannah HEADON ; Adbul KASEM ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2015;42(5):532-543
Capsular contracture is the most common complication following implant based breast surgery and is one of the most common reasons for reoperation. Therefore, it is important to try and understand why this happens, and what can be done to reduce its incidence. A literature search using the MEDLINE database was conducted including search terms 'capsular contracture breast augmentation', 'capsular contracture pathogenesis', 'capsular contracture incidence', and 'capsular contracture management', which yielded 82 results which met inclusion criteria. Capsular contracture is caused by an excessive fibrotic reaction to a foreign body (the implant) and has an overall incidence of 10.6%. Risk factors that were identified included the use of smooth (vs. textured) implants, a subglandular (vs. submuscular) placement, use of a silicone (vs. saline) filled implant and previous radiotherapy to the breast. The standard management of capsular contracture is surgical via a capsulectomy or capsulotomy. Medical treatment using the off-label leukotriene receptor antagonist Zafirlukast has been reported to reduce severity and help prevent capsular contracture from forming, as has the use of acellular dermal matrices, botox and neopocket formation. However, nearly all therapeutic approaches are associated with a significant rate of recurrence. Capsular contracture is a multifactorial fibrotic process the precise cause of which is still unknown. The incidence of contracture developing is lower with the use of textured implants, submuscular placement and the use of polyurethane coated implants. Symptomatic capsular contracture is usually managed surgically, however recent research has focussed on preventing capsular contracture from occurring, or treating it with autologous fat transfer.
Acellular Dermis
;
Breast Implants
;
Breast*
;
Contracture*
;
Female
;
Foreign Bodies
;
Incidence
;
Mammaplasty
;
Polyurethanes
;
Radiotherapy
;
Receptors, Leukotriene
;
Recurrence
;
Reoperation
;
Risk Factors
;
Silicones
4.Evolving Trends in Breast Surgery: Oncoplastic to Onco-Aesthetic Surgery.
Amtul R CARMICHAEL ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2016;43(2):222-223
No abstract available.
Breast*
6.Breast Lipofilling: A Review of Current Practice.
Abdul KASEM ; Umar WAZIR ; Hannah HEADON ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2015;42(2):126-130
Lipofilling is a reconstructive and aesthetic technique that has recently grown in popularity and is increasingly being used in breast surgery. Previous concerns had been raised regarding its safety when used for remodelling and reconstruction of the breast; however, these concerns have since been dismissed. Over the subsequent two decades, little evidence has been found to support these early theoretical concerns, and growing numbers of proponents of the procedure are confident in its safety. Many developments and refinements in the technique have taken place in recent years, and several studies have been published regarding the safety of lipofilling in the breast. We reviewed the current literature regarding the use of different lipofilling techniques as well as the current evidence regarding the oncological safety of the procedure in patients seeking aesthetic breast enhancement and in patients requiring reconstruction after treatment for breast cancer.
Breast Neoplasms
;
Breast*
;
Female
;
Humans
;
Lipectomy
;
Mammaplasty
;
Transplantation
7.Breast Auto-Augmentation: A Versatile Method of Breast Rehabilitation-A Retrospective Series of 107 Procedures.
Laurence KIRWAN ; Umar WAZIR ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2015;42(4):438-445
BACKGROUND: Breast auto-augmentation (BAA) using an inferior pedicle dermoglandular flap aims to redistribute the breast tissue in order to increase the fullness in the upper pole and enhance the central projection of the breast at the time of mastopexy in women who want to avoid implants. The procedure achieves mastopexy and an increase in breast volume. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2014, 107 BAA procedures were performed in 53 patients (51 bilateral, 2 unilateral and 3 reoperations) with primary or secondary ptosis of the breast associated with loss of fullness in the upper pole (n=45) or undergoing explantation combined with capsulectomy (n=8). Six patients (11.3%) had prior mastopexy and 2 (3.7%) patients had prior reduction mammoplasty. The mean patients' age was 41 years (range, 19-66 years). All patients had preoperative and postoperative photographs and careful preoperative markings. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 9 years (mean, 6.6 months). RESULTS: The range of elevation of the nipple was from 6 to 12 cm (mean, 8 cm). The wounds healed completely with no complications in 50 (94.3%) patients. Three patients had complications including 2 (3.7%) hematomas and 1 (1.9%) partial necrosis of the nipple-areola complex. Three (5.7%) patients were dissatisfied with the level of mastopexy achieved underwent a further procedure. No patient complained of scar hypertrophy. CONCLUSIONS: BAA is a versatile technique for women with small breasts associated with primary or secondary ptosis. It is also an effective technique for the salvage of breasts after capsulectomy and explantation.
Breast*
;
Cicatrix
;
Female
;
Follow-Up Studies
;
Hematoma
;
Humans
;
Hypertrophy
;
Mammaplasty
;
Necrosis
;
Nipples
;
Retrospective Studies*
;
Surgical Flaps
;
Wounds and Injuries
8.The Oncological Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature with a Pooled Analysis of 12,358 Procedures.
Hannah Louise HEADON ; Abdul KASEM ; Kefah MOKBEL
Archives of Plastic Surgery 2016;43(4):328-338
Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly popular as a procedure for the treatment of breast cancer and as a prophylactic procedure for those at high risk of developing the disease. However, it remains a controversial option due to questions regarding its oncological safety and concerns regarding locoregional recurrence. This systematic review with a pooled analysis examines the current literature regarding NSM, including locoregional recurrence and complication rates. Systematic electronic searches were conducted using the PubMed database and the Ovid database for studies reporting the indications for NSM and the subsequent outcomes. Studies between January 1970 and January 2015 (inclusive) were analysed if they met the inclusion criteria. Pooled descriptive statistics were performed. Seventy-three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis, yielding 12,358 procedures. After a mean follow up of 38 months (range, 7.4-156 months), the overall pooled locoregional recurrence rate was 2.38%, the overall complication rate was 22.3%, and the overall incidence of nipple necrosis, either partial or total, was 5.9%. Significant heterogeneity was found among the published studies and patient selection was affected by tumour characteristics. We concluded that NSM appears to be an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected patients, with low rates of locoregional recurrence. For NSM to be performed, tumours should be peripherally located, smaller than 5 cm in diameter, located more than 2 cm away from the nipple margin, and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative. A separate histopathological examination of the subareolar tissue and exclusion of malignancy at this site is essential for safe oncological practice. Long-term follow-up studies and prospective cohort studies are required in order to determine the best reconstructive methods.
Breast Neoplasms
;
Cohort Studies
;
Epidermal Growth Factor
;
Follow-Up Studies
;
Humans
;
Incidence
;
Mastectomy*
;
Necrosis
;
Nipples
;
Patient Selection
;
Population Characteristics
;
Prospective Studies
;
Recurrence