You won’t be feeling 100 percent after that week, but you’ll be in good-enough shape to head back to the office if your job doesn’t require manual labor. However, if the implant is placed behind the muscle instead of on top (many women choose to do this for a more realistic look and less chance of a scar shell forming around the implant), recovery will be a little harder and you might be sore longer.
A small, removable fill tube is left temporarily attached to the breast implant after surgery. The tube is accessible to the physician by injection through the skin. In a simple office procedure, breast implant size can be varied by adding or removing saline until you have achieved the result you desire. At this point, the fill tube is removed (again, in a routine office visit) and a self-sealing valve immediately closes and seals the breast implant.
Breast reduction involves reducing the size of the breast. A breast lift involves lifting the nipple-areolar complex and reducing the excess skin of the breast. Breast reductions can involve just liposuction in patients who have more fatty tissue than glandular breast tissue. Liposuction alone indeed does reduce the volume of the breasts. However, sagging of the breast can result and liposuction alone is therefore performed usually in highly selected patients.
Breast reduction and breast lift procedures can be great options for women who wish to reduce or alter the position of their breasts. They are also effective surgeries for any woman wanting to refine the size or shape of their breasts. So, which one should you choose? That all depends on your personal goals and expectations. Below you will find information pertaining to the differences and similarities breast reduction and breast lift procedures share, which might just help you decide which surgery is right for you.
the third technological development was the double lumen breast implant device, a double-cavity prosthesis composed of a silicone breast implant contained within a saline breast implant. The two-fold, technical goal was: (i) the cosmetic benefits of silicone-gel (the inner lumen) enclosed in saline solution (the outer lumen); (ii) a breast implant device the volume of which is post-operatively adjustable. Nevertheless, the more complex design of the double-lumen breast implant suffered a device-failure rate greater than that of single-lumen breast implants. The contemporary versions of second-generation breast implant devices (presented in 1984) are the "Becker Expandable" models of breast implant, which are primarily used for breast reconstruction.
Silicone gel implants were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cosmetic breast augmentation in November 2006. The move ended a 14-year moratorium during which silicone gel implants were available in the U.S. only for breast reconstruction, for women who already had these implants and needed a replacement for medical reasons and for use in ongoing clinical trials.
Many different types of breast lifts are now available in conjunction with a breast reduction, including lifts just around the areola (periareolar), vertical/lollipop mastopexies (incision around the areola and down to the breast fold, and full breast lifts with an anchor incision. For patients who have very loose skin in the armpit or back, axillary or bra lifts are also often combined with breast reductions.
The study Safety and Effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel Implants at 6 Years (2009), which was a branch study of the U.S. FDA's core clinical trials for primary breast augmentation surgery patients, reported low device-rupture rates of 1.1 per cent at 6-years post-implantation. The first series of MRI evaluations of the silicone breast implants with thick filler-gel reported a device-rupture rate of 1 percent, or less, at the median 6-year device-age. Statistically, the manual examination (palpation) of the woman is inadequate for accurately evaluating if a breast implant has ruptured. The study, The Diagnosis of Silicone Breast implant Rupture: Clinical Findings Compared with Findings at Magnetic Resonance Imaging (2005), reported that, in asymptomatic patients, only 30 per cent of the ruptured breast implants are accurately palpated and detected by an experienced plastic surgeon, whereas MRI examinations accurately detected 86 per cent of breast implant ruptures. Therefore, the U.S. FDA recommended scheduled MRI examinations, as silent-rupture screenings, beginning at the 3-year-mark post-implantation, and then every two years, thereafter. Nonetheless, beyond the U.S., the medical establishments of other nations have not endorsed routine MRI screening, and, in its stead, proposed that such a radiologic examination be reserved for two purposes: (i) for the woman with a suspected breast implant rupture; and (ii) for the confirmation of mammographic and ultrasonic studies that indicate the presence of a ruptured breast implant.