The authors were able to do a comparison of 92 patients who underwent breast surgery at the ASC and 92 who underwent surgery at the hospital because they had an ASC that was closed in 2005, and then breast operations were moved to a hospital.

The study analyzed anesthetic techniques; recovery room events; and the patient’s total duration of stay, pre- through post-op.

Results found that age and recovery times were similar and complications were negligible at both, but the preoperative and total facility time increased for breast operations done in the hospital setting.

“Findings support a common perception, namely, that outpatient surgery can be more efficiently performed at a dedicated outpatient center rather than at a hospital setting,” according to the study’s authors.

Reasons for the efficiency of the ASC include:

• Nurses at the ASC only prep outpatients, whereas hospital nurses may process both outpatients and critically ill patients.
• The ASC was limited to a relatively small and uniform set of cases, whereas the hospital has a more varied and complex case mix, which can cause surgery delays.
• The preoperative area in the ASC was physically closer to the OR compared with the hospital setting.

The study conclusion states that “the potential efficiency advantage of an ASC over a hospital has implications for patient and staff satisfaction, facility expense, and surgeon productivity.”

While both the ASC and hospital are safe places for plastic surgery, the ASC may have the advantage in efficiency.

According to the story published on the LATimes website, Lydia Carranza’s breast implant deflated when she was shot in the chest last summer – an incident that claimed the life of her co-worker and left her with disfiguring scars.  When a man opened fire in the dental office where she worked, Lydia was shot twice: “The bullet fragments were millimeters from her heart and her vital organs,” said Dr. Ashkan Ghavami to the LA Times.

A firearms expert speaking to the Times said the deciding factor between life and death for Lydia may have been the presence of her saline breast implant.  Of course he advises readers, “don’t go getting breast enhancements as a means to deflect a possible incoming bullet.”

Read about this on LATimes.com

It is uncommon, but a certain number of patients do experience a disruption in the ability to breast feed.  Usually, this problem is associated with the type of breast augmentation incision chosen.  If future breast feeding is a concern, you should investigate the surgical incision techniques that avoid manipulation of the nipple such as those near the armpit, breast crease, or navel.

Some surgeons will recommend sub-muscular breast implant placement as well, even though breast feeding is not necessarily compromised by sub-glandular (above the muscle) placement.

Research studies published in the late 90s regarding infant safety haven’t found any measurable risks associated with breast implants.  In the late 90s, a study was published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery showing that women with silicone breast implants carry no higher levels of silicone (silicon) in their breast milk than women without implants.  It isn’t known what effect would occur if a small amount of silicone were to pass through to the infant.

If you still have concerns, feel free to speak with Dr. Leff or your OB/GYN.  Whether you plan to become pregnant or not, it is best to understand all of the possible breast augmentation risks before proceeding with surgery.

Last week, we brought you the first segment from the ASAPS series of videos about breast augmentation. Here’s a newer episode in the series in which a patient discusses her satisfaction with breast implants and the reaction of her peers.

A crucial point she covers is about educating yourself on the procedure and the risks. “I had fears to begin with, but my fears lessened the more information that I gathered” she recalls. If you’re interested in breast implants, you would be wise to do some research; read the ASAPS literature, speak to a qualified surgeon, or see our breast augmentation page.

Silicone breast implants offer the benefit of feeling more natural, weighing less – which reduces the chance of ptosis – and do not ripple when bending over. This has been a major complaint of saline implants for some time. However, saline implants have the benefit of requiring a smaller incision and in some cases are able to be place through the belly button, reducing the chances of a visual scar.

Safety has often been a question of concern for women seeking breast augmentation with regards to their implant choices. Both Saline and Silicone have been extensively studied over the past decade for their rate of rupture, capsular contracture, studies on breast cancer, auto immune deficiency syndrome and overall affect on the human body. In fact, the silicone breast implant has been studied more and tested more than any FDA approved drug and medical device on the market today.

The two major manufactures of breast implants in the US are the Mentor Corporation and Allergan. Both companies provide a complete list of options in their breast implants choices – from high profile to low profile to smooth round to contoured textured. The options may seem confusing for women seeking breast augmentation, however, during the consultation visit most of these questions can be addressed with the surgeon.

The fact the there are a multitude of choices now for breast implants, women should take the time to research their options prior to scheduling their surgery. If you are wishing to know more about breast augmentation and your breast implant choices please contact Bellevue Plastic Surgeon, Dr. Michael Leff for your free consultation.

These are some of the before and after breast augmentation results that Dr. Leff has performed.