4.6 Article

Breast Implant Complication Review: Double Capsules and Late Seromas

Journal

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 127, Issue 1, Pages 56-66

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181fad34d

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The problem of double capsules and late seromas is a relatively new phenomenon in breast augmentation surgery. Methods: The author's experience with double capsules in 14 patients is outlined. The author reviewed all primary bilateral breast augmentations and primary bilateral mastopexy-augmentations after the moratorium in 1992. There were 209 patients with saline implants, 160 patients with CML and CMH Microcell textured surface implants, 105 patients with Biocell textured surface silicone gel breast implants, and 152 patients with smooth round silicone gel breast implants. Complications and revisions were reviewed to see if any patterns emerged. Results: Fourteen patients were found to have double capsules. Double capsules were only seen with the Biocell textured surface implant. Three patients developed late seromas (more than a year after their original surgery), with two patients requiring urgent drainage of an expanding seroma/hematoma. Seven patients were found to have double capsules as an incidental finding for procedures, such as asymmetry and bottoming out, and five patients were found to have double capsules when surgery was performed for capsular contracture. The review of complications and revisions showed that the silicone gel implants were far better than saline implants. Highly cohesive Microcell textured CMH and CML implants had by far the best capsular contracture profile. Biocell texturing increased the capsular contracture rate. Conclusions: Double capsules and late seromas are a relatively new problem in breast augmentation surgery. The problem was not seen in smooth saline or smooth silicone gel breast implants but only in aggressively textured implants. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 127: 56, 2011.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available