Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation

Breast augmentation is a totally elective, medically unnecessary procedure, and surgeons and patients must prioritize minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks at the primary operation and at reoperations. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings in October of 2003 to con...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2004-10, Vol.114 (5), p.1258-1262
1. Verfasser: TEBBETTS, John B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1262
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1258
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 114
creator TEBBETTS, John B
description Breast augmentation is a totally elective, medically unnecessary procedure, and surgeons and patients must prioritize minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks at the primary operation and at reoperations. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings in October of 2003 to consider approval of conventional silicone gel implants, data documented an overall reoperation rate of 20 percent at just 3 years after primary breast augmentation. Subsequently, the premarket approval was not granted. Similarly high reoperation rates have been reported in previous saline and silicone gel premarket approval studies over the past two decades, demonstrating that high reoperation rates are not device dependent and suggesting a need to reexamine surgical management criteria. Bilateral implant removal without replacement limits additional reoperations in a wide range of clinical situations. Surgeons and patients often prefer other options to avoid removal without replacement, but other options carry a higher tradeoffs, costs, and risks to the patient. If minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks of reoperations is a priority, surgeons must define and patients must understand and accept "out points," that is, specific criteria for bilateral implant removal without replacement. Defining out points is challenging. Enforcing them when difficult clinical situations occur is even more challenging. This article presents out points that have been incorporated into staged, repetitive informed consent documents and used in the author's practice for more than 10 years. In peer-reviewed and published reports of more than 1600 patients, these out points criteria, in conjunction with the TEPID system (tissue characteristics of the envelope, parenchyma, and implant and the dimensions and fill distribution dynamics of the implant) of implant and pocket selection based on individual patient quantifiable tissue criteria and surgical techniques that minimize tissue trauma and bleeding, resulted in an overall reoperation rate of 3 percent in 1662 reported cases with up to 7 years of follow-up, compared with the 20 percent reoperation rate at 3 years in the most recent Food and Drug Administration study.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.PRS.0000136802.91357.CF
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66925152</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>66925152</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-e718e80a5bdab735a4fab3e80ea6c76ee9db78d7343788bcc20d180a97dbfab53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkdFO3DAQRa2qVVmgv1BFlcpbgh3HdsIbWrEUCYmKlmdr4kyoqyRObacIPoDvxguL1i-WZ869I88l5BujBaONOqWs-Hn7q6DpMC5rWhYN40IV680HsmKibPKqrMqPZEUpL3NGRXlADkP4m3DFpfhMDpiohKKVXJHnmyVms7NTDJnxNqK3kPXOZ61HCDGz4zzAFDOPo_sPQ_Zg4x-3bN-pbnDE1IOp22ujy0Y72dE-YYLcjB6idVNIpsPgHux0_24Ny_1W_to-Jp96GAJ-2d1H5G5z8Xv9I7--ubxan1_nhlcq5qhYjTUF0XbQKi6g6qHlqYIgjZKITdequlO84qquW2NK2rHEN6prEyn4ETl58529-7dgiHq0weCQ_ohuCVrKphRphQk8ewONdyF47PXs7Qj-UTOqtyloynRKQe9T0K8p6PUmib_upiztiN1eult7Ar7vAAgGht7DZGzYc5LJulE1fwFOPZXs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66925152</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>TEBBETTS, John B</creator><creatorcontrib>TEBBETTS, John B</creatorcontrib><description>Breast augmentation is a totally elective, medically unnecessary procedure, and surgeons and patients must prioritize minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks at the primary operation and at reoperations. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings in October of 2003 to consider approval of conventional silicone gel implants, data documented an overall reoperation rate of 20 percent at just 3 years after primary breast augmentation. Subsequently, the premarket approval was not granted. Similarly high reoperation rates have been reported in previous saline and silicone gel premarket approval studies over the past two decades, demonstrating that high reoperation rates are not device dependent and suggesting a need to reexamine surgical management criteria. Bilateral implant removal without replacement limits additional reoperations in a wide range of clinical situations. Surgeons and patients often prefer other options to avoid removal without replacement, but other options carry a higher tradeoffs, costs, and risks to the patient. If minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks of reoperations is a priority, surgeons must define and patients must understand and accept "out points," that is, specific criteria for bilateral implant removal without replacement. Defining out points is challenging. Enforcing them when difficult clinical situations occur is even more challenging. This article presents out points that have been incorporated into staged, repetitive informed consent documents and used in the author's practice for more than 10 years. In peer-reviewed and published reports of more than 1600 patients, these out points criteria, in conjunction with the TEPID system (tissue characteristics of the envelope, parenchyma, and implant and the dimensions and fill distribution dynamics of the implant) of implant and pocket selection based on individual patient quantifiable tissue criteria and surgical techniques that minimize tissue trauma and bleeding, resulted in an overall reoperation rate of 3 percent in 1662 reported cases with up to 7 years of follow-up, compared with the 20 percent reoperation rate at 3 years in the most recent Food and Drug Administration study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000136802.91357.CF</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15457046</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Implants - adverse effects ; Clinical Protocols ; Device Removal ; Female ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Medical sciences ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Prosthesis Failure ; Reoperation ; Risk Factors ; Silicone Gels ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2004-10, Vol.114 (5), p.1258-1262</ispartof><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-e718e80a5bdab735a4fab3e80ea6c76ee9db78d7343788bcc20d180a97dbfab53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16168978$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15457046$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>TEBBETTS, John B</creatorcontrib><title>Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>Breast augmentation is a totally elective, medically unnecessary procedure, and surgeons and patients must prioritize minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks at the primary operation and at reoperations. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings in October of 2003 to consider approval of conventional silicone gel implants, data documented an overall reoperation rate of 20 percent at just 3 years after primary breast augmentation. Subsequently, the premarket approval was not granted. Similarly high reoperation rates have been reported in previous saline and silicone gel premarket approval studies over the past two decades, demonstrating that high reoperation rates are not device dependent and suggesting a need to reexamine surgical management criteria. Bilateral implant removal without replacement limits additional reoperations in a wide range of clinical situations. Surgeons and patients often prefer other options to avoid removal without replacement, but other options carry a higher tradeoffs, costs, and risks to the patient. If minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks of reoperations is a priority, surgeons must define and patients must understand and accept "out points," that is, specific criteria for bilateral implant removal without replacement. Defining out points is challenging. Enforcing them when difficult clinical situations occur is even more challenging. This article presents out points that have been incorporated into staged, repetitive informed consent documents and used in the author's practice for more than 10 years. In peer-reviewed and published reports of more than 1600 patients, these out points criteria, in conjunction with the TEPID system (tissue characteristics of the envelope, parenchyma, and implant and the dimensions and fill distribution dynamics of the implant) of implant and pocket selection based on individual patient quantifiable tissue criteria and surgical techniques that minimize tissue trauma and bleeding, resulted in an overall reoperation rate of 3 percent in 1662 reported cases with up to 7 years of follow-up, compared with the 20 percent reoperation rate at 3 years in the most recent Food and Drug Administration study.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Device Removal</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Silicone Gels</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkdFO3DAQRa2qVVmgv1BFlcpbgh3HdsIbWrEUCYmKlmdr4kyoqyRObacIPoDvxguL1i-WZ869I88l5BujBaONOqWs-Hn7q6DpMC5rWhYN40IV680HsmKibPKqrMqPZEUpL3NGRXlADkP4m3DFpfhMDpiohKKVXJHnmyVms7NTDJnxNqK3kPXOZ61HCDGz4zzAFDOPo_sPQ_Zg4x-3bN-pbnDE1IOp22ujy0Y72dE-YYLcjB6idVNIpsPgHux0_24Ny_1W_to-Jp96GAJ-2d1H5G5z8Xv9I7--ubxan1_nhlcq5qhYjTUF0XbQKi6g6qHlqYIgjZKITdequlO84qquW2NK2rHEN6prEyn4ETl58529-7dgiHq0weCQ_ohuCVrKphRphQk8ewONdyF47PXs7Qj-UTOqtyloynRKQe9T0K8p6PUmib_upiztiN1eult7Ar7vAAgGht7DZGzYc5LJulE1fwFOPZXs</recordid><startdate>20041001</startdate><enddate>20041001</enddate><creator>TEBBETTS, John B</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041001</creationdate><title>Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation</title><author>TEBBETTS, John B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-e718e80a5bdab735a4fab3e80ea6c76ee9db78d7343788bcc20d180a97dbfab53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Device Removal</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care)</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Silicone Gels</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>TEBBETTS, John B</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>TEBBETTS, John B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2004-10-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1258</spage><epage>1262</epage><pages>1258-1262</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>Breast augmentation is a totally elective, medically unnecessary procedure, and surgeons and patients must prioritize minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks at the primary operation and at reoperations. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings in October of 2003 to consider approval of conventional silicone gel implants, data documented an overall reoperation rate of 20 percent at just 3 years after primary breast augmentation. Subsequently, the premarket approval was not granted. Similarly high reoperation rates have been reported in previous saline and silicone gel premarket approval studies over the past two decades, demonstrating that high reoperation rates are not device dependent and suggesting a need to reexamine surgical management criteria. Bilateral implant removal without replacement limits additional reoperations in a wide range of clinical situations. Surgeons and patients often prefer other options to avoid removal without replacement, but other options carry a higher tradeoffs, costs, and risks to the patient. If minimizing tradeoffs, costs, and risks of reoperations is a priority, surgeons must define and patients must understand and accept "out points," that is, specific criteria for bilateral implant removal without replacement. Defining out points is challenging. Enforcing them when difficult clinical situations occur is even more challenging. This article presents out points that have been incorporated into staged, repetitive informed consent documents and used in the author's practice for more than 10 years. In peer-reviewed and published reports of more than 1600 patients, these out points criteria, in conjunction with the TEPID system (tissue characteristics of the envelope, parenchyma, and implant and the dimensions and fill distribution dynamics of the implant) of implant and pocket selection based on individual patient quantifiable tissue criteria and surgical techniques that minimize tissue trauma and bleeding, resulted in an overall reoperation rate of 3 percent in 1662 reported cases with up to 7 years of follow-up, compared with the 20 percent reoperation rate at 3 years in the most recent Food and Drug Administration study.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>15457046</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.PRS.0000136802.91357.CF</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2004-10, Vol.114 (5), p.1258-1262
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66925152
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Breast Implants - adverse effects
Clinical Protocols
Device Removal
Female
Humans
Informed Consent
Medical sciences
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prosthesis Failure
Reoperation
Risk Factors
Silicone Gels
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
title Out points criteria for breast implant removal without replacement and criteria to minimize reoperations following breast augmentation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T09%3A02%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Out%20points%20criteria%20for%20breast%20implant%20removal%20without%20replacement%20and%20criteria%20to%20minimize%20reoperations%20following%20breast%20augmentation&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=TEBBETTS,%20John%20B&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1258&rft.epage=1262&rft.pages=1258-1262&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.PRS.0000136802.91357.CF&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66925152%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66925152&rft_id=info:pmid/15457046&rfr_iscdi=true