breast implant complications
Breasts occur before 119.
In the first 68 years, breast augmentation was attempted by direct injection of materials including paraffin, fat and free silica gel.
These attempts resulted in catastrophic consequences including infection, hard lumps of the breast, deformity, fat absorption, fatty necrosis, and chronic inflammatory response.
Removal is difficult and can sometimes lead to measures as drastic as a mastectomy.
After the invention of the breast X-ray examination, it was found that these injections would create some illusion and make cancer screening more difficult.
For these reasons, most plastic surgeons in the United States have given up direct breast injections.
However, in the second half of the 20 th century, many other countries continue to inject free silicone into breast augmentation.
In 1958, the United States launched the first commercial breast augmentation surgery, and more than 200 different types and designs of breast augmentation surgery have been produced since then.
Experts estimate that, with the exception of 1992, 60% of them were silicone gel-filled implants
2006, when the FDA is suspended.
During this time, saline-filled implants dominate the market.
Dow Corning dominated the implant market for the first 30 years, but during 1980, more than 15 other companies created breast implants.
Although the Congress granted the FDA the power to regulate medical devices in 1976, breast augmentation surgery was still \"old-fashioned\" and few products were strictly tested in clinical trials before they were sold in the open market.
It was not until 1991 that the FDA required the company to submit an application for approval before listing that breast augmentation was regulated.
Therefore, when the planting industry is \"blind\", the US Food and Drug Administration requires comprehensive data 90-
Deadline to complete all safety studies.
With thousands of lawsuits erupting at the same time, implant manufacturers are stuck between the new demands of the FDA, with the \"expert witness\" chorus claiming that silicone-
The wave of immunization and litigation.
Without good data to protect the safety of silicone implants, the industry collapsed in less than three years.
In 1992, the FDA banned-
The research programme was approved for safety reasons.
In the 1990 s, as a result of breast augmentation proceedings, all breast augmentation manufacturers, except for the two breast augmentation manufacturers, went out of business or stopped producing breast augmentation.
In 1996, the court appointed a national science team to review more than 2,000 medical documents and hear testimony from legal, medical and scientific experts.
The team released their findings on 1998, concluding that there is no identifiable association between the use of silicone implants and the disease.
On 1999, the National Institute of Medicine released 455-
The Page report concluded that women with breast augmentation are not more common with scabs tissue disease, cancer, neurological disease or other systemic complications than women without breast augmentation.
2006. the US Food and Drug Administration canceled the suspension of silicone gel-filled prosthesis, provided that the remaining two manufacturers had a nuclear study after one month, 81,260 cases --
The year started in November 17, 2006.
Today, most patients in the United States have once again selected silicone gel implants for cosmetic and reconstruction breast surgery, but the bag shrank (
Today\'s rates are no better than the 1960 s at the time these implants were first developed.
In retrospect, the main complication when trying breast augmentation for the first time in 1890 was bag contracture contraction, and 2009 was still the main complication of breast augmentation.
Although this is a well-known fact, more than 119 of the implants have received most attention.
During the year, unproven claims of implant rupture and implant-induced systemic human disease became the focus.
The current silicone gel-filled implants in the United States are called \"fourth generation\" implants by many, and their manufacturing standards and testing standards are much more stringent.
The \"fifth generation\" implant has been used in Europe for ten years and has been used in Canada for five years, but still has not been approved by the FDA.
These \"fifth generation\" implants are cohesive gel implants commonly referred to as \"gummy bear\" implants.
The advantages of these implants include less ripples and a lack of gel extrusion/leakage if the Silicone elastic shell breaks.
It is also hoped that the bag contracture shrinkage rate of these implants will be lower, but preliminary evidence suggests that, like all previous generations of implants, the contracture shrinkage rate remains a major issue.
We must learn from the history of silicone gel implants and do not repeat history again.
There must be good scientific research in business and marketing.
Due to FDA requirements and legal risks, the cost of bringing new implants to market has multiplied.
Now, most of the new implants are first tested in Europe or South America and are usually approved only a few decades before US approval.
Prior to the approval of the US market, many clinical trials of existing and new implants are being conducted worldwide.
The rate of implant rupture also requires long-term research.
Innovation is needed to reduce the most common complications-bag atrophy, which is still happening after the history of 119.