The Experts below are selected from a list of 1224 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Lennart Ohlsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Maurice Y Nahabedian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • risk factor analysis for Capsular Contracture a 5 year sientra study analysis using round smooth and textured implants for breast augmentation
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013
    Co-Authors: Grant W Stevens, Maurice Y Nahabedian, Bradley M Calobrace, Jennifer L Harrington, Peter J Capizzi, Robert E Cohen, Rosalyn C Dincelli, Maggi Beckstrand
    Abstract:

    Background:Although there are a few broadly agreed on contributory factors, the multifaceted causes of Capsular Contracture have remained unresolved for decades. This study investigates a variety of potential risk factors that contribute to Capsular Contracture in primary augmentation patients.Metho

  • acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant associated breast deformities
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011
    Co-Authors: Scott L Spear, Mitchel Seruya, Mark W Clemens, Steven Teitelbaum, Maurice Y Nahabedian
    Abstract:

    Background Acellular dermal matrix has been increasingly accepted in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Observed benefits include improved control and support of implant position, better implant coverage, and the suggestion of a decreased Capsular Contracture rate. Based on this positive experience, it is not surprising that acellular dermal matrix would be applied to other challenging implant-related problems. This study investigates the use of acellular dermal matrix for correction or prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Methods Patients who underwent primary aesthetic breast surgery or secondary aesthetic or reconstructive breast surgery using acellular dermal matrix and implants between November of 2003 and October of 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, indications for acellular dermal matrix, and acellular dermal matrix type and inset pattern were identified. Preoperative and postoperative photographs, success or failure of the procedure, complications, and need for related or unrelated revision surgery were recorded. Results Fifty-two patients had acellular dermal matrix placed alongside 77 breast prostheses, with a mean follow-up of 8.6 months (range, 0.4 to 30.4 months). Indications included prevention of implant bottoming-out (n = 6), treatment of malposition (n = 32), rippling (n = 20), Capsular Contracture (n = 16), and skin flap deficiency (n = 16). Seventy-four breasts (96.1 percent) were managed successfully with acellular dermal matrix. Three failures consisted of one breast with bottoming-out following treatment of Capsular Contracture, one breast with major infection requiring device explantation, and one breast with recurrent rippling. There was a 9.1 percent total complication rate, consisting of three mild infections, one major infection necessitating explantation, one hematoma, and one seroma. Conclusion Based on this experience in 77 breasts, acellular dermal matrix has shown promise in treating and preventing Capsular Contracture, rippling, implant malposition, and soft-tissue thinning.

Lars Hakelius - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Scott L Spear - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant associated breast deformities
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011
    Co-Authors: Scott L Spear, Mitchel Seruya, Mark W Clemens, Steven Teitelbaum, Maurice Y Nahabedian
    Abstract:

    Background Acellular dermal matrix has been increasingly accepted in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Observed benefits include improved control and support of implant position, better implant coverage, and the suggestion of a decreased Capsular Contracture rate. Based on this positive experience, it is not surprising that acellular dermal matrix would be applied to other challenging implant-related problems. This study investigates the use of acellular dermal matrix for correction or prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Methods Patients who underwent primary aesthetic breast surgery or secondary aesthetic or reconstructive breast surgery using acellular dermal matrix and implants between November of 2003 and October of 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, indications for acellular dermal matrix, and acellular dermal matrix type and inset pattern were identified. Preoperative and postoperative photographs, success or failure of the procedure, complications, and need for related or unrelated revision surgery were recorded. Results Fifty-two patients had acellular dermal matrix placed alongside 77 breast prostheses, with a mean follow-up of 8.6 months (range, 0.4 to 30.4 months). Indications included prevention of implant bottoming-out (n = 6), treatment of malposition (n = 32), rippling (n = 20), Capsular Contracture (n = 16), and skin flap deficiency (n = 16). Seventy-four breasts (96.1 percent) were managed successfully with acellular dermal matrix. Three failures consisted of one breast with bottoming-out following treatment of Capsular Contracture, one breast with major infection requiring device explantation, and one breast with recurrent rippling. There was a 9.1 percent total complication rate, consisting of three mild infections, one major infection necessitating explantation, one hematoma, and one seroma. Conclusion Based on this experience in 77 breasts, acellular dermal matrix has shown promise in treating and preventing Capsular Contracture, rippling, implant malposition, and soft-tissue thinning.

  • classification of Capsular Contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 1995
    Co-Authors: Scott L Spear, James L Baker
    Abstract:

    The Baker classification of Capsular Contracture remains the most popular and practical method of assessing clinical firmness of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty. This classification system was never intended to describe prosthetic breast reconstruction. A modification of the Baker classification to include classes IA, IB, II, III, and IV has been developed to describe breast reconstruction more accurately. For this modified system, a soft but visible implant (class IB), an implant with mild firmness (class II), and an implant with moderate firmness (class III) could still be considered good or excellent outcomes. Only a class IV classification with an excessively firm and symptomatic breast resulting in a poor aesthetic result would necessarily be considered a poor outcome.

Lynn L C Jeffers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.