Decision and management algorithms to address patient and food and drug administration concerns regarding breast augmentation and implants.

During the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel hearings to evaluate the premarket approval for conventional silicone gel implants on October 14 and 15, 2003, panel members and patient advocate representatives focused on four specific areas of concern: reoperation rates in primary breast augmentation; levels, depth, and methods of patient education and informed consent; modes, frequency, and management of silicone gel implant device failures, including management of "silent" ruptures; and methods of monitoring and managing symptoms or symptom complexes that may or may not be associated with connective tissue disease or other undefined symptom complexes. These concerns, with a reported 20 percent reoperation rate for primary augmentation within just 3 years, and a lack of concise, definitive management protocols addressing these areas of concern may have contributed to the Food and Drug Administration's rejection of the premarket approval, despite the panel's recommendation for approval. This article presents decision and management algorithms that have been used successfully for 7 years in a busy breast augmentation practice (Tebbetts and Tebbetts). The algorithms have been further expanded and refined by a group of surgeons with diverse experiences and expertise to address the following clinical situations that coincide with concerns expressed by patients and the Food and Drug Administration: implant size exchange, grade III to IV capsular contracture, infection, stretch deformities (implant bottoming or displacement), silent rupture of gel implants, and undefined symptom complexes (connective tissue disease or other). In one practice (Tebbetts and Tebbetts) that uses the TEPID system (tissue characteristics of the envelope, parenchyma, and implant and the dimensions and fill distribution dynamics of the implant), implant selection is based on quantified patient tissue characteristics, pocket selection is based on quantified soft-tissue coverage, and anatomic saline implants have fill volumes that are designed to minimize shell collapse and fold fatigue; in this practice, the algorithms contributed to a 3 percent overall reoperation rate in 1662 reported cases with up to 7 years of follow-up, compared with a 20 percent reoperation rate at 3 years in the 2003 premarket approval study.

An approach that integrates patient education and informed consent in breast augmentation.

Informed consent requires surgeons to provide information about all available alternatives and their associated risks and tradeoffs to every prospective breast augmentation patient. The informed patient and surgeon then make decisions based on the information the patient has received, clinical parameters that may affect those decisions, and the patient's willingness to accept specific risks and tradeoffs. During the authors' 22 years of clinical practice, substantial changes have occurred in the requirements for adequate informed consent and the methods of ensuring that patients receive it. The numbers of alternatives for augmentation and the relative benefits and risks of each method have changed substantially over the past two decades. Four specific areas of postoperative issues stimulated major changes in the authors' approach to patient education and informed consent: 1) questions or dissatisfaction with implant size postoperatively, 2) questions about financial responsibility for costs associated with untoward events requiring reoperation postoperatively including capsular contracture or other problems, 3) spouses or other concerned parties rendering opinions postoperatively when they had not been involved in the informed consent process, and 4) criteria for whether reoperations were indicated, how many were indicated, and when implant removal without replacement might be most logical. This paper describes an approach that integrates patient education and informed consent in stages by 1) providing detailed, highly specific written and verbal information, 2) utilizing a staged approach to education and informed consent that provides information and requires simultaneous, informed consent in stages, 3) repeating each critical topic at least two or three times during the process, requiring repetitive written documentation by the patient on at least three different occasions, 4) emphasizing patient accountability for choices selected, and 5) organizing the education and informed consent process so that it is clinically practical and also increases thoroughness and documentation while conserving surgeon time. This staged, integrated system of patient education and informed consent uses a comprehensive set of informed consent documents that are available for downloading from the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Web site (www.plasreconsurg.org). Before incorporating any of the informed consent documents or statements reported in this paper, each surgeon should seek review by the surgeon's malpractice insurance carrier and by appropriate legal counsel to ensure compliance with state and federal laws applicable to the surgeon's practice. These documents have evolved to prospectively address patient management issues that have occurred over the authors' 22-year experience in augmentation. The documents are not endorsed by ASPS and do not necessarily represent the views of ASPS.