Stoker Plastic Surgery: David Stoker, MD
4640 Admiralty Way #1000
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (310) 300-1779
Monday–Friday: 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m.
Dr. David Stoker, a cosmetic surgeon in Los Angeles, has authored a dozen publications on state-of-the-art cosmetic surgery topics. These include articles on cosmetic facial, breast and body contouring procedures in a variety of distinguished plastic surgery journals. Dr. Stoker has been nationally recognized for his research in power-assisted liposuction and the anatomy of the facial nerve as it relates to facelifts. Dr. Stoker has made a significant contribution to the field of body contouring with his pioneering research of power-assisted liposuction, the safest and most effective lipoplasty method available.
Clinical Experience with Mentor Contour Profile MemoryGel Breast Implants: A Single Institution’s Experience with 99 Consecutive Patients
Published in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, October 2009
INTRODUCTION: Mentor Contour Profile MemoryGel breast implants are form-stable silicone gel breast implants with increased gel cross-linking and surface texturing. The purpose of this study is to report a single institution’s experience with these implants.
METHODS: Ninety-nine patients (198 implants) were enrolled prospectively and followed over 42 months. All breast implant surgeries were performed by the senior surgeon (WGS) or his associate (DAS) at an ambulatory surgery center. Patients were seen on post-operative day 1, within the first week, at 4-6 months, at 1 year, and yearly thereafter. Information was collected on patient demographics, implant and surgical variables, and complications and revisions. Chi square analysis and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare groups with respect to differences in complication and revision rates.
RESULTS: Mean follow up time was 17 months. Patients’ ages ranged from 18-63 years (mean 36). Implant sizes ranged from 165-680 cc (mean 348cc). Indications for surgery were as follows: 81% primary augmentations, 12% primary mastopexy augmentations, 6% secondary augmentations, and 1% secondary breast reconstruction. Seventy nine percent of implants were placed via inframammary incisions, 8% placed through periareolar incisions, 12% placed via mastopexy incisions and 1% through mastectomy scar. Ninety nine percent of implants were placed in the submuscular plane. The overall complication and revision rates were 5% and 4%, respectively. No capsular contractures, reports of wrinkling, implant rotation or malpositions were observed.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of Mentor Contour Profile MemoryGel implants. The complication and revision profile of these implants is similar to other published studies of form-stable silicone gel breast implants, including a decreased capsular contracture rate. In the authors’ experience, these implants appear to be a safe alternative to other saline or silicone gel implants, although continued follow-up is needed to more completely evaluate these implants.
–E.M. Hirsch, J. Gillespie, D.A. Stoker, W.G. Stevens
Safe and Consistent Outcomes of Successfully Combining Breast Surgery and Abdominoplasty: An Update.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, March 2009.
BACKGROUND: Combined cosmetic procedures have become increasingly popular. One of the most common combinations of cosmetic procedures includes abdominoplasty and cosmetic breast surgery. The shortened recovery and financial savings associated with combined surgery contribute to the increased demand for these combined surgeries.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combined abdominoplasty and breast surgery at a single plastic surgery practice that performs a large volume of these cases. This is an update to a study published in 2006.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent combined abdominoplasty and cosmetic breast surgery during the last 10 years at a single outpatient surgery center. Abdominoplasty inclusion criteria were defined as lower, mini, full, reverse, or circumferential abdominoplasty. Cosmetic breast surgery inclusion criteria were defined as augmentation, mastopexy, augmentation-mastopexy, reduction, or removal and replacement of implants. Pertinent preoperative and intraoperative data were recorded along with complications and revisions.
RESULTS: There were 268 patients during the 10-year period between 1997 and 2007. There were no cases of death, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, or other life-threatening complications. The overall complication rate was 34%. Abdominoplasty seroma and scars requiring revision comprised 68% (n = 74) of the complications. The total revision rate was 13%.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined abdominoplasty and cosmetic breast surgery was safe and effective in this large series of cases performed at a single plastic surgery practice. The complication and revision rates of the combined surgery were similar to those reported for individually staged procedures. (Aesthetic Surg J 2009;29:129-134.)
— W.G. Stevens, R. Repta, S.J. Pacella, M.J. Tenenbaum, R. Cohen, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker
Clinical Experience With a Fourth-Generation Textured Silicone Gel Breast Implant: A Review of 1012 Mentor MemoryGel Breast Implants
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, November-December 2008
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone gel implants, manufacturers have conducted several prospective, multicenter trials to examine their safety and efficacy. However, these studies were not standardized with regard to surgeon skill, pocket placement, operative technique, adjunct therapies, or postoperative management.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the surgical outcomes of a single surgeon (WGS) in a consecutive series of breast augmentation cases using a fourth-generation cohesive silicone MemoryGel breast implant (Mentor, Santa Barbara, CA).
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent silicone breast augmentation within the Mentor Adjunct Silicone MemoryGel breast implant by a single surgeon (WGS) within a single free-standing outpatient surgical center over a 13-year period (1992 to 2006). For each patient, demographic information, comorbidities, and surgical information (implant size and concomitant surgery) were recorded. In addition, outcomes were analyzed to identify complications and the need for surgical revision.
RESULTS: A total of 1012 fourth-generation, textured, cohesive silicone gel implants were placed in 511 patients during the 13-year study period. The overall complication rate per implant was 5.5% (n = 56 implants in 43 patients). The most common complication was capsular contracture (n = 26; 2.6%) followed by abnormal scarring (n = 11; 1.1%). The overall revision rates per patient and per implant were 8.0% (n = 41 patients) and 6.8% (n = 69 implants), respectively. The average time interval between initial implantation and revision was 18.5 months (range, 2 weeks to 26 months). The most common indication for surgical revision was patient desire for implant size change (n = 15 patients) followed by Baker class III or IV capsular contracture (n = 13 patients). The presence of previous surgery for capsular contracture was not statistically correlated to the need for revision (P = .326). Age (P = .568), previous history of breast surgery (P = .704), and history of smoking (P = .138) were also not statistically correlated to revision. Placement of the implant in the subglandular position (n = 30 implants), however, was statistically correlated with need for revision (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Mentor fourth-generation cohesive silicone gel implants possess a complication and revision profile that is superior to earlier-generation silicone gel implants. Implantation with MemoryGel implants, when standardized with regard to surgeon and operative technique, can have significantly reduced complication and revision rates compared to the Mentor Core Data.
— W.G. Stevens, S.J. Pacella, A.J.L. Gear, M.E. Freeman, C. McWhorter, M.J. Tenenbaum, D.A. Stoker
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, March-April 2008
BACKGROUND: In the last 15 years, reduction mammaplasty has been increasingly performed on an outpatient basis. Despite this evolution, few outcome studies have been published regarding outpatient breast reduction surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The authors documented clinical outcomes of reduction mammaplasty performed in an outpatient setting over an 11-year period and compared these results with published normative values in the plastic surgery literature.
METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of 884 reduction mammaplasties in 444 patients at a single outpatient surgical center performed by the senior author (W.G.S.) from 1995 through 2006. In all cases, a laser-assisted, inferior pedicle, Wise pattern, reduction mammaplasty was performed. In addition to demographic and surgical data, complication frequency and type were recorded. Complication data were further stratified into minor and major categories. Potential minor complications included seroma, hematoma, soft tissue infection, dog-ears requiring revision, and small incisional breakdowns or delayed healing of less than 2 cm. Potential major complications included large incisional breakdowns or delayed healing of greater than 2 cm, nipple/areolar necrosis, need for blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, and death.
RESULTS: The mean patient age was 38 years (range, 16 to 73 years). Mean body-mass index was 27 (range 17 to 47). The reported preoperative brassiere cup sizes ranged from a 34 C to a 38 K, with a DD being the most common size. The mean preoperative sternal notch-to-nipple distance was 29 cm (range 22 to 54 cm). Forty patients smoked (9%). Mean clinical follow-up was 13 months. Mean total resection weight of breast tissue was 1228 g (range 100 to 5295 g). Mean operative time for reduction mammaplasty was 115 minutes (range 50 to 195 minutes). Nineteen percent of patients underwent multiple procedures, including abdominoplasty, lipoplasty, and facial procedures, with a mean operative time of 132 minutes (range 75 to 345 minutes). The overall complication rate was 14%, with 70 minor complications occurring in 62 patients. Specific minor complications included one seroma, four hematomas, eight soft tissue infections, two of which required a short course of intravenous antibiotics, one patient with dog-ears requiring surgical revision, and 56 small incisional wound breakdowns (<2 cm). The small incisional breakdowns, which represented the largest group of complications, were further subdivided into 44 minor T-zone wounds, 3 nipple-areolar complex wounds, and 9 wounds of the vertical and horizontal incisions. Three major complications (0.67%) were recorded. Two patients had development of partial nipple/areolar necrosis. A third patient required anticoagulation for a pulmonary embolus diagnosed 10 days after surgery. Statistical analysis of the complication data revealed one significant relationship. Patients with a body mass index above the mean had a 21% complication rate as compared with a 12% rate for those below the mean. Of note, there was no increase in complication rate in the context of multiple procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective series is the largest to date involving outpatient reduction mammaplasty. Complication data derived from this series are comparable to previously published studies and thus support the safety and efficacy of outpatient reduction mammaplasty performed in an accredited facility.
— W.G. Stevens, A.J.L. Gear, D.A. Stoker, E.M. Hirsch, R. Cohen, M. Spring, S.D. Vath, S.A. Schantz, R.T. Heck
Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, November 2007
BACKGROUND: One-stage mastopexy with breast augmentation is an increasingly popular procedure among patients. In the past 9 years, there has been a 506 percent increase in mastopexy procedures alone. Although some recommend a staged mastopexy and breast augmentation, there are currently no large studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of a one-stage procedure.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 321 consecutive patients who underwent one-stage mastopexy and breast augmentation. Data collected included the following: patient characteristics, implant information, operative technique, and postoperative results. Complication and revision rates were calculated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the one-stage procedure.
RESULTS: No severe complications were recorded over an average of 40 months’ follow-up. The most common complication was deflation of a saline implant (3.7 percent), followed by poor scarring (2.5 percent), recurrent ptosis (2.2 percent), and areola asymmetry (2.2 percent). Forty-seven patients (14.6 percent) underwent some form of revision surgery following the one-stage procedure. Thirty-five (10.9 percent) of these were for an implantrelated issue, whereas 12 patients (3.7 percent) underwent a tissue-related revision. This 10.9 percent implant-related revision rate is less than a previously documented 13.2 percent 3-year reoperation rate for breast augmentation alone. The authors’ 3.7 percent tissue-related revision rate also compares favorably to an 8.6 percent revision surgery rate in patients who underwent mastopexy alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Although it has been stated that the risks of a one-stage procedure are more than additive, the results of our review suggest otherwise. Although a revision rate of 14.6 percent is significant, it is far from the 100 percent reoperation rate required for a staged procedure.
— W.G. Stevens, M.E. Freeman, D.A. Stoker, S.M. Quardt, R. Cohen, E.M. Hirsch
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, September-October 2007
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy has historically been a controversial topic, and it has been considered by some to be a difficult and unpredictable procedure. Secondary breast augmentation and mastopexy after previous breast surgery is rarely discussed in the literature, and little is known about the outcomes of these secondary procedures.
OBJECTIVES: The authors present the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive secondary simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy cases.
METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients who underwent secondary combined augmentation mammaplasty and mastopexy from 1992 to 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. The complications and revision rates in this group of patients were analyzed and compared with primary mastopexy alone, as well as with primary combined augmentation and mastopexy. Independent variables such as patient age, history of smoking, body mass index, type and size of implant, and type of mastopexy incision were analyzed for correlation with complication and revision rates.
RESULTS: No major complications were noted in an average of 3.5 years follow-up (range 13 months to 13 years). Minor complications occurred in 13 patients, of whom 8 required revision surgery. The most common tissue-related complications were poor scarring (3%) and recurrent ptosis (3%). The most common implant-related complications were infection (3%) and capsular contracture (2%). In addition, 6 patients underwent reoperation for implant size exchange, and 1 patient underwent revision surgery to receive silicone implants. Patient age, history of smoking, body mass index, type and size of implant, type of mastopexy incision, type and number of previous breast surgeries, surgical time, concurrent non-breast operations, and preoperative ptosis grade were not statistically significant risks when correlated to the complication and revision rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy after previous breast surgery is a commonly performed procedure that is not adequately reported in the literature. Our study indicates that the procedure is safe and has complication and revision rates comparable to primary augmentation/mastopexy.
— W.G. Stevens, M. Spring, D.A. Stoker, M.E. Freeman, R. Cohen, S.M. Quardt, E.M. Hirsch
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, May-June 2007
BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty has traditionally been described in the literature as an operation that is performed in a hospital setting, although more recently it is likely that most procedures are performed on an outpatient basis. To date, there have been very few large series illustrating the safety and efficacy of abdominoplasty performed in outpatient surgery centers.
OBJECTIVES: This study reports the complications and revisions of outpatient abdominoplasties in a large patient population.
METHODS: The charts of 519 consecutive abdominoplasty procedures performed at a single outpatient surgical center over the past 10 years (1996-2006) were reviewed. Follow-up was 6 months to 10 years, with an average of 4.3 years. Mean age at the time of operation was 43 years; range 19 to 74 years. Gender, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists risk score, body mass index, type of abdominoplasty, and concurrent procedures were recorded. Each patient’s chart was reviewed to assess complication and revision rates, including deaths, venous thromboembolism events, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, and scarring unacceptable to the patient or surgeon.
RESULTS: The most common complication was seroma (10.6%), followed by unacceptable scarring of the abdominal or umbilical incisions (7.9%). The most common reason for revision was abdominal scar revision (6.4%). Most patients had concurrent additional procedures at the time of abdominoplasty, most commonly lipoplasty (91%). There was no statistically significant difference in complications or revisions when comparing groups based on age, body mass index, operating room time, smoking status, full abdominoplasty versus a less complex procedure such as a “mini” or floating umbilical abdominoplasty or simultaneous procedures. Men were significantly less likely to have a complication when compared with women.
CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study of 519 consecutive abdominoplasty procedures performed on an outpatient basis demonstrates that abdominoplasties may be performed safely and effectively at an accredited outpatient surgery facility.
— W.G. Stevens, M.A. Spring, D.A. Stoker, R. Cohen, S.D. Vath, E.M. Hirsch
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, March-April 2007
BACKGROUND: Although there is an abundance of data in the literature regarding the safety of breast reduction and augmentation, nearly all of the literature concerning mastopexy describes techniques. There are few studies regarding revision and complication rates for mastopexy procedures.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a series of 150 consecutive patients who underwent a mastopexy procedure. Operations were performed by one of two surgeons (W.G.S. or D.A.S.) in an outpatient surgery center over a 6-year period (1999-2005), with an average follow-up of 36 months. Patients were identified as being either primary (no previous breast surgery) or secondary (history of at least one previous breast surgery). The type of mastopexy design was recorded (inverted-T or vertical), and trends were examined. Complication and revision rates were observed, and their rates were calculated.
RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight women underwent bilateral and two underwent unilateral mastopexy for a total of 150 women and 298 breasts. There were 119 primary and 31 secondary patients. Mastopexy incision designs were as follows: 86% inverted-T and 14% vertical. There were no major complications. The most common complications were poor scarring (6%) and seroma formation (2.7%). The revision rate was 8.6%; 75% of revisions were for poor scarring. Some of these were performed with the patients under local anesthesia or at the time of a subsequent unrelated surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Our series of 150 consecutive patients, with no major complications and a revision rate of 8.6% over an average of 36 months, indicates that mastopexy may be considered a safe and effective procedure.
— W.G. Stevens, D.A. Stoker, M.E. Freeman, S.M. Quardt, E.M. Hirsch
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, July-August 2006.
BACKGROUND: Although several studies have been published documenting the safety of laser-assisted breast reduction, they have involved only small numbers of patients.
OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of a series of 367 consecutive patients who underwent inferior pedicle laser-assisted breast reduction surgery at a single outpatient facility from 1995 through 2004.
METHODS: All patients received appropriate preoperative intravenous antibiotics and had sequential compression devices placed on their lower extremities before induction of anesthesia. Pedicle deepithelialization was performed using a carbon dioxide laser in continuous mode. Following deepithelialization, an inferior pedicle Wise-pattern breast reduction was performed in standard fashion. In approximately 20% of cases, breast reduction was combined with lipoplasty, facial aesthetic surgery, or abdominoplasty. Minor complications assessed included seroma, hematoma, infection, dog-ear, and incisional wound breakdown. Major complications were defined as >25% nipple/areola necrosis, blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death.
RESULTS: No major complications were noted in our series. Two patients with infections required short-term hospitalization for administration of intravenous antibiotics. A total of 47 minor complications occurred in 42 patients (11%), including 36 incisional wound breakdowns, 6 infections, 3 hematomas, 1 seroma, and 1 dog-ear revison. The incisional breakdowns included 25 minor T-zone wounds, 2 nipple-areolar complex wounds, and 9 wounds of the vertical and transverse incisions. No inclusion cysts were noted in any patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates for our series of patients who underwent laser-assisted breast reduction surgery were consistent with those reported for non-laser-assisted procedures. These results, combined with the benefits and efficient operating time afforded by laser deepithelialization, indicate that laser-assisted breast reduction surgery can provide an alternative to standard methods of deepithelialization for those surgeons with access to a carbon dioxide laser.
— W.G. Stevens, R. Cohen, S.A. Schantz, D.A. Stoker, S.D. Vath, E.M. Hirsch, R. Heck, M.E. Freeman.
Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, August 2006
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not prefilled breast implants retain their volume in packaging.
METHODS: This study examined 32 Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants. All of these implants were within the manufacturer’s expiration date at the time of weighing. No holes were visible on any of the implants. All were weighed on an electronic scale. The measured weight was compared with the expected weight (based on the implant size as specified by the manufacturer) and the percentage deflation was calculated. The manufacturer declined to provide specific information about the manufacture dates of the implants; thus, relative age (rather than absolute age) was examined with respect to percentage deflation.
RESULTS: Of the 32 implants examined, all showed some degree of deflation (range, 8.84 to 57.14 percent; 95 percent confidence interval of the mean, 22.01 +/- 4.17 percent). There was a moderate correlation (r = 0.41) between relative age of the implant and percentage deflation.
CONCLUSIONS: From these results, it is clear that this type of prefilled saline breast implant does not maintain its volume in vitro. If these implants are used, the underfilling could contribute to a higher deflation rate and cosmetic deformity. This risk should be taken into account by plastic surgeons who use this type of implant in breast augmentation procedures.
— W.G. Stevens, E.M. Hirsch, D.A. Stoker, R. Cohen.
Is it safe to combine abdominoplasty with elective breast surgery? A review of 151 consecutive cases.
Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, July 2006
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate and compare the complication rates of patients having abdominoplasty without breast surgery with the rates of those having abdominoplasty with various types of elective breast surgery, including breast augmentation, breast reduction, mastopexy, and mastopexy combined with simultaneous augmentation.
METHODS: The data collected represent a retrospective chart review of consecutive abdominoplasty procedures performed at a single outpatient facility by the senior surgeon (W.G.S.) over a 15-year period (1989 to 2004). Two groups were compared: patients who underwent abdominoplasty without breast surgery and those who had abdominoplasty with breast surgery. The second group was subdivided by the various types of breast procedures noted above. The minor complications assessed included seromas, hematomas, infections, and small (<5 cm) wound breakdowns. Major complications evaluated included large (>5 cm) flap necrosis, need for blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, and death. Additional data compiled included age, sex, tobacco use, body mass index, past medical history, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status level, and operative times.RESULTS: Of the 415 abdominoplasty procedures, 264 (group 1) did not include simultaneous breast surgery. One hundred fifty-one procedures (group 2) involved simultaneous breast surgery, representing 36 percent of the total. Group 2 was further subdivided into those who had breast augmentation surgery (group 2A, n = 50), those who had breast reduction surgery (group 2B, n = 31), those who had mastopexy surgery (group 2C, n = 28), and those who had simultaneous mastopexy and breast augmentation surgery (group 2D, n = 42). Removal and replacement of implants and capsulectomy/capsulotomy procedures were included in the augmentation group (group 2A). There were no major complications, including flap necrosis (open wound >5 cm), blood transfusions, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death. No patients required hospitalization. No statistically significant associations with complications were noted between groups 1 and 2 (chi-square, 0.0045; p > 0.95, not significant). Furthermore, when subdivided by type of breast surgery, no statistically significant associations were noted among subgroups: group 1 versus 2A (chi-square, 0.96; p > 0.05, not significant), group 1 versus 2B (chi-square, 0.032; p > 0.9, not significant), group 1 versus 2C (chi-square, 0.003; p > 0.975, not significant), and group 1 versus 2D (chi-square, 0.83; p > 0.5, not significant).CONCLUSION: The results of this retrospective review indicate that combining elective breast surgery with abdominoplasty does not appear to significantly increase the number of major or minor complications.
— W.G. Stevens, R. Cohen, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker, E.M. Hirsch.
A comparison of 500 prefilled textured saline breast implants versus 500 standard textured saline breast implants: is there a difference in deflation rates?
Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, June 2006.
BACKGROUND: This study provides the first large-volume (1000 implant) comparison of the deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants versus a control group of Mentor Siltex textured saline implants.
METHODS: A consecutive series of 500 Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants was compared with a consecutive series of 500 Mentor Siltex breast implants. Each breast implant was evaluated for a 4-year period, and the annual deflation rate (number of deflations during a given year divided by the total number of implants) and cumulative deflation rate (cumulative total of deflations through a given year divided by the total number of implants) were recorded. Statistical significance was calculated using the Fisher’s exact test at year 1 and the chi-square analysis at years 2 through 4.
RESULTS: The cumulative deflation rates of the Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was as follows: year 1, 1.2 percent; year 2, 5.6 percent; year 3, 11.4 percent; and year 4, 15.4 percent. The cumulative deflation rates of the Mentor implants was: year 1, 0.2 percent; year 2, 0.6 percent; year 3, 1.6 percent; and year 4, 4.4 percent. At year 1, the difference between deflation rates was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test, p > 0.05). However, at year 2 (chi-square, 13.29; p < 0.001), year 3 (chi-square, 37.91; p < 0.001), and year 4 (chi-square, 32.69; p < 0.001), the difference was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference between the overall deflation rates of Poly Implant Prosthesis prefilled textured saline breast implants and Mentor Siltex breast implants at year 2, year 3, and year 4. After 4 years, the 15.56 percent cumulative deflation rate of Poly Implant Prosthesis implants was over 3.5 times higher than the 4.31 percent deflation rate of the Mentor Siltex implants. There may be several factors contributing to the higher deflation rate seen in Poly Implant Prosthesis implants, including possible in vitro deflation before implantation and silicone shell curing technique. Nevertheless, this statistically significant deflation difference must be taken into account when balancing the risks and benefits of Poly Implant Prosthesis breast implants.
— W.G. Stevens, E.M. Hirsch, D.A. Stoker, R. Cohen.
Does lipoplasty really add morbidity to abdominoplasty? Revisiting the controversy with a series of 406 cases.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, July-August 2005.
BACKGROUND: The popularity of plastic surgery “makeover” television programs has increased interest among the public and the medical community in both the positive and negative aspects of combined surgery procedures. In particular, the safety of combining abdominoplasty with lipoplasty became a matter of concern following multiple deaths in Florida and the consequent moratorium on simultaneous abdominoplasty and lipoplasty enacted by the Florida Board of Medicine.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the morbidity of abdominoplasty combined with suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL) compared to the morbidity of abdominoplasty alone.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 406 consecutive abdominoplasty procedures performed by the senior author (W.G.S.) at a single outpatient surgery center was conducted. Cases were sorted into 2 groups: those that had abdominoplasty only and those that had abdominoplasty with SAL. The SAL group was further subdivided into 4 groups based on the volumes of aspirate removed. The primary groups and subgroups were compared with regard to morbidity. In addition, the location of SAL, age, body mass index (BMI) and surgery time of each patient were evaluated as contributing factors to morbidity.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in complication rates were found when comparing abdominoplasty with SAL to abdominoplasty alone. Additionally, the amount and location of lipoplasty, age, BMI and surgery times did not significantly affect patient morbidity. The prevalence of morbidity in all groups compared favorably to parameters established in previous studies of abdominoplasty and SAL.
CONCLUSIONS: This extensive retrospective study provides further evidence that combining abdominoplasty with SAL does not increase patient morbidity compared to abdominoplasty alone.
— W.G. Stevens, R. Cohen, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker, E.M. Hirsch.
Acceleration of textured saline breast implant deflation rate: Results and analysis of 645 implants.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, January-February 2005.
BACKGROUND: Although inflatable saline implants have been in use since 1965, few studies have examined their deflation rates over time.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the deflation rate for Mentor inflatable Siltex saline implants (Mentor Corp., Santa Barbara, CA) for a period of 5 years following implantation.
METHODS: The study group included 645 Siltex inflatable implants placed in 324 patients for primary breast augmentation between 1992 and 1997. The implants were placed by a single surgeon using the same surgical technique. Implant data were obtained from the operative log and patient charts for a 6-year period from 1992 to 1997. All patients were followed for 5 years.
RESULTS: The deflation rate of the implants was 0.3% within the first year of implantation, 2.2% within the first 3 years, and 5.3% over 5 years. The rate of spontaneous deflation per implant year was 0.3% at 1 year, 0.7% at 3 years, and 1.0% at 5 years. The deflation rate was lower than the expected deflation rate reported in the manufacturer’s product insert data sheet.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of spontaneous implant deflation per year was demonstrated to increase with time. Further studies are needed to ascertain the long-term deflation rates for each type of breast implant.
— W.G. Stevens, D.R. Fellows, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker.
“Extreme” cosmetic surgery: a retrospective study of morbidity in patients undergoing combined procedures.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, July-August 2004.
BACKGROUND: It is increasingly common for patients to request that multiple cosmetic procedures be performed during a single operation. The advantages of combined procedures include a single recovery period, reduced surgery costs, and faster patient gratification. Traditional surgical thinking, however, has favored the performance of some procedures individually in an effort to decrease complications associated with prolonged anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine whether performance of combined cosmetic surgery procedures results in increased morbidity.
METHODS: Two hundred forty-eight abdominoplasties performed by the same surgeon over a 10-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Four groups of procedures were compared: abdominoplasty alone, abdominoplasty combined with breast surgery, abdominoplasty combined with facial surgery, and abdominoplasty combined with both breast and facial surgery.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in complication rates were found among the four groups. The prevalence of morbidity in all groups compared favorably to the parameters established in previous reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective review do not indicate that the combination of cosmetic surgical procedures increases morbidity. The potential benefits of combined procedures may be considered with the expectation of comparably low complication rates.
— W.G. Stevens, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker.
An integrated approach to the repair of inverted nipples.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, May-June 2004.
BACKGROUND: Many methods for the correction of the inverted nipple have been described, but no consensus has been reached as to which is the best approach.
OBJECTIVE: We describe an integrated approach to the correction of nipple inversion that minimizes ductal disruption.
METHODS: We performed initial nipple eversion using gentle traction with a skin hook. The nipple base was approached with the use of an inferior periareolar incision through the subcutaneous tissue. Blunt dissection parallel to the ducts restored varying degrees of projection. Selective ductal division was performed as necessary to obtain complete eversion with normal projection. To maintain the nipple in an overcorrected position, we placed a nylon traction suture through the center of the nipple and affixed to a stent consisting of a medicine cup and gauze padding.
RESULTS: In a series of 21 patients, nipple eversion was maintained after at least 1 year’s follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The technique for correction of nipple inversion reported here is focused on blunt dissection through vertical spreading parallel to the lactiferous ducts, with selective division of only those ducts that restrict nipple projection. The use of traction stenting helps ensure eversion and protects the repair. The technique produces excellent results without recurrence of nipple inversion.
— W.G. Stevens, D.R. Fellows, S.D. Vath, D.A. Stoker.
Published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal, March 2003.
BACKGROUND: No single technique for fixation of the scalp after endoscopic forehead lift is universally accepted, and complications such as alopecia and regression of elevation have been reported with all techniques.
OBJECTIVE: This report describes the preliminary results of a study of the Endotine 3.5 forehead device (Coapt Systems, Inc, Palo Alto, CA), a new biodegradable fixation device.
METHODS: The Endotine 3.5 device consists of a post on the deep side for anchoring it in the skull and five tines on the superior side for engaging the deep scalp tissues. It was tested in 9 patients, with postoperative follow-up ranging from 6 to 8 months. The surgeon evaluated the device for difficulty/ease of use, palpability, postsurgical pain, and wound healing.
RESULTS: The Endotine 3.5 device produced a secure fixation without problems or complications, although it was often palpable with moderate degrees of sensitivity. It could be applied in less than 2 minutes per side.
CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary findings indicate that the Endotine 3.5 forehead device provides rapid, secure fixation without the complications associated with other fixation techniques. After patients reported that it was still palpable up to 24 weeks after implantation, a second-generation polymer that dissolves more rapidly was fabricated. Further studies are under way to evaluate long-term efficacy.
— W.G. Stevens, D.B. Apfelberg, D.A. Stoker, S.A. Schantz.
Complications of injectable synthetic polymers in facial augmentation.
Published in Dermatol Surg, October 1997.
BACKGROUND: Injectable synthetic materials have been used for augmentation of soft tissue defects, correction of wrinkles, and augmentation of facial features such as the nasal dorsum. Success has been limited by inflammatory reactions, material migration, and the difficulty of removal should complications occur.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate complications resulting from soft tissue augmentation with injectable alloplastic materials.
METHODS: Retrospective review of seven cases. Clinical history, treatment, histopathologic findings, and outcomes are assessed.
RESULTS: Inflammatory reaction and tissue damage were refractory to antibiotics and steroids, and surgery was required to remove the foreign material. Histologic examination revealed giant cell foreign body reaction in all cases.
CONCLUSION: Injectable synthetic polymers can produce significant complications including deformity and inflammatory tissue destruction, the control of which is complicated by the difficulty of removing the materials. Removable tissue fillers, such as e-PTFE, or natural materials such as collagen, autologous, fat, or Alloderm, should be considered instead.
— C.S. Maas, I.D. Papel, D. Greene, D.A. Stoker.
- Acceleration of Textured Saline Breast Implant Deflation Rate: Results and Analysis of 645 Implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2005.
Click here to read more
- An Integrated Approach to the Repair of Inverted Nipples. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2004.
Click here to read more
- “Extreme” Cosmetic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Combined Procedures. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2004.
Click here to read more