Archive for March, 2010
Friday, March 12th, 2010
Just when you think you have heard it all, a new and bizarre tale of cosmetic surgery rears its head. If I didn’t know any better, this story may well have happened in China or the back streets of a remote Siberian city.
From the Garden state of New Jersey in Essex County, a group of female patients (six to be exact) ended up in hospitals after undergoing buttock enhancement. Apparently, they received buttocks enhancement injections containing caulking material. The same material that is used to caulk windows and bathtubs was injected to make their glutes larger. Different from medical-grade silicone, the substance used in these Mengele-like botched procedures was believed to be a diluted version of a nonmedical-grade silicone. Traditional buttock enlargement procedures are done with either a medical-grade solid silicone implant or with fat injections.
Apparently administered by unlicensed providers, the women were admitted to hospitals following the injections after developing raging infections. They were treated with surgery and antibiotics and appear to be recovering (although, you can be certain their buttocks will never be the same).
While many may wonder why anyone would want their buttocks enlarged (since many women would actually want them reduced), this is a popular request amongst certain ethic groups where a fuller and rounder buttocks is more appealing. Some have called this the Jennifer Lopez effect.
While these cases are certainly a tragedy, the looming question is how could this happen? In a country with the finest and most advanced medical technology in the world, how does someone come to the fate of having their butt caulked?
While injectable aesthetic treatments, such as Botox, collagen and fat, have been a real advance in plastic surgery, there is a rare, dark side to the concept. Because injection therapy is not surgery, it is not regulated like traditional plastic surgery procedures. There is no oversight and many of these treatments take place in a wide variety of settings by ‘providers’ of all backgrounds.
Because of their apparent simplicity to administer, injectable treatments are often viewed as a commodity. As in, ‘what treatment can I get for the lowest price’? While searching for bargains is commendable in many retail situations, a faux watch or look-alike handbag does not carry the same risk as do faux injection materials.
While not common in this part of the U.S., black-market injectors do exist and their practitioners prey on the weakest and least educated consumer- those that often can least afford it. As crazy as the butt caulking incident sounds, there has been a recent history of dubious practitioners providing cosmetic implants of nonmedical-grade materials. They function in a makeshift office for a short time, then get put out of business…only long enough for other shady providers to take their place.
Most of these incidents happen in large metropolitan cities with a high percentage of immigrant populations. In such an environment it is easy to hide, to be invisible to the authorities, and find plenty of victims before moving on. Smaller cities like Indianapolis are more difficult for unlicensed providers to remain anonymous as they are more quickly exposed, and appeal to a much smaller population.
The conclusion is …Caveat emptor: Buyer beware. If the costs of the procedure look too good to be true, there is probably a reason.
Dr. Barry Eppley
Tags: buttock enlargement, buttock implants, dr barry eppley, fat injections to the buttocks, indianapolis, plastic surgery
Posted in Newspaper Articles | No Comments »
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
Q: I have been infected with HIV for nearly 15 years. While he medications have been invaluable and have saved my life I suffer from some of their cosmetic side effects including a very gaunt face and a non-existant butt. For my face which is better, fillers or iimplants. Can anything be done to my butt bigger?
A: One of the well known side effects of the medications to treat HIV is lipoatrophy or fat loss. The fat loss is quite specific, however, and has a predilection for facial and buttock fat. Loss of the buccal fat pads and, in severe cases, much of the subcutaneous fat results in a sunken in or very gaunt look to the face. It is such a classic presentation that it can be socially stigmatizing has having the underlying medical problem. In the buttocks, fat is lost so they become very flat appearing. Other parts of the body, for unknown reasons, undergo fat hypertrophy (excessive growth) most commonly in the back of the neck (buffalo hump) and in the abdominal area.
Facial lipoatrophy can be successfully improved with a variety of approaches including synthetic cheek implants, fat injections, or synthetic fillers. (e.g., Sculptra) Which one is best must be determined on an individual basis considering the extent of the fat loss and whether one prefers to avoid actual surgery or not. Fat grafting is probably best avoided as its persistence in the face of the medications is unlikely.
Treatment of buttock lipoatrophy is a different matter with no good options. Fat injections are not adviseable due to likely complete resorption and a result which will be underwhelming. This leaves buttock implants as the only option which carries with it a significant recovery and risks of infection and seroma complications.
No type of plastic surgery should be performed in an HIV patient unless their cell counts have been normalized and medical clearance is obtained from their treating physician. According to recent studies, the infection rate for plastic surgery procedures is not different in HIV vs non-HIV patient populations if good cell counts exist.
Dr. Barry Eppley
Tags: buttock lipoatrophy, dr barry eppley, facial lipoatrophy, fat loss in hiv, hiv, indianapolis, plastic surgery
Posted in Your Questions | No Comments »
Friday, March 5th, 2010
When spring just around the corner, this is the time of year when many people start thinking about their body again. Warm weather and less clothing cause some women to think about their ‘curves’. Perhaps to the surprise of some, spring is the peak season when the greatest number of breast augmentation surgeries are done. This is a seasonal trend that is very unique to this type of cosmetic surgery.
When considering breast augmentation, most women today opt for silicone gel breast implants. Since they have become available again for human use in late 2006, they rapidly have become the preferred implant for many breast augmentations. Yet, despite FDA-approval, many patients understandably ask about their safety. Even if one was not old enough to even be aware of what transpired in the early 1990s with the previous generation of silicone breast implants, there remains some lingering concerns that are easy to find on the internet.
Since silicone gel breast implants are FDA-approved, and they would not be available if they were not, that speaks to their safety. But most do not know the extent of information that goes into that type of approval process. And because of their history, silicone gel breast implants have become the single most studied implantable device in the world. As a result, the most common questions that women may have about this type of breast implant has well known answers.
Can breast implants make me sick? In 1997, the Federal government (Department of Health and Human Services) appointed the National Academy of Science to study the likelihood of medical complications after breast implant surgery. After reviewing years of evidence and research concerning silicone gel-filled breast implants, they found that health problems such as connective tissue illnesses, cancer, and other diseases were no more common in women with breast implants than in women who had never had the surgery.
In the 1990s, thousands of women claimed that they had become ill from their implants. Some studies around that time suggested that these health symptoms of women with implants may improve when their implants are removed. We now know conclusively that this is not true. The relationship between autoimmune diseases and breast implants is coincidental…both largely occur in women between the ages of 20 to 50…but one does not lead to the other. The FDA has even gone so far as to conclude that there is link between fibromyalgia and breast implants either.
Will breast implants cause cancer? Reviews of research and medical studies on silicone breast implants show that breast cancer is no more common in women with silicone breast implants than in those without. In fact, for reasons different than one may think, women with breast implants actually have earlier breast cancer detection. This has nothing to do with the implant per se, it is a function of breast awareness. Women with breast implants are more likely to be ‘attuned’ to their breasts and how they feel.
Can I breast feed with breast implants? For the younger women, this is a frequent question. The issue is not whether one can physically do it, but will any harm come to the baby by doing so. The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2001 that having silicone breast implants is not a contraindication to breastfeeding nor does it pose any health risks to the infant. Similarly, epidemiological investigations have not found any increased risk of health problems in children born to women with silicone breast implants.
Dr. Barry Eppley
Tags: breast augmentation, breast implants, dr barry eppley, indianapolis, plastic surgery, silicone gel braest implants, silicone gel breast augmentation
Posted in Newspaper Articles | No Comments »
Friday, March 5th, 2010
The mere mention of the word ‘facelift’ is to many people a frightening concept that is best avoided. Beyond implying surgery, images of ‘perpetual surprise’, ‘wind-tunnel’ and ‘unnatural’ come to mind. It is these very misconceptions and fears that have led to a surge of procedures that have become broadly known as non-surgical facelifts.
Cleverly marketed as appealing improvements known as ‘lunchtime facelifts’ and ‘liquid facelifts’ , these facial procedures are hopefully performed in a doctor’s office with a combination of Botox, injectable fillers (such as Juvaderm and Radiesse), and light and laser treatments. They are tremendously appealing precisely because they are not surgery, and involve no scarring or downtime. And they are based on a recently appreciated anatomic understanding of facial aging which is that of volume deflation (loss of fat) and not just sagging tissues alone. ‘Re-inflation’ of the face is the result of these treatments, even if it is only temporary (there are no permanent injectable fillers).
Under the guise and enthusiasm of anything that is pain and recovery-free being better than a real facelift, a patient inquired about the ‘new’ Y-facelift published this past weekend in New York Times Sunday Magazine. Buried in the center pages of this magazine was a story entitled ‘Houston, We Have Facelift’. Reading this story got me thinking about everything that is both good and bad about the non-surgical facelift ‘revolution’.
The concept: Developed by a dentist who claims to have taken four years to develop this approach, the Y-facelift involves filling the face with large volumes of injectable fillers, molding it around with one’s fingers, and then treating the skin with radiofrequency treatments to tighten it. I am not sure what the Y means but some filling out of the face is most certainly achieved, without surgery, for a subtle improvement.
The bad:. It may be shocking for some that everything in New York isn’t always better (although always twice as expensive) and the New York Times Style magazine does not carry the same scientific clout, for example, as the New England Journal of Medicine. Cosmetic procedures are fraught with a common problem- marketing that frequently gets way ahead of proven science. This practice is so prevalent that doctors and companies alike have learned that appearing in Allure, Cosmopolitan and other beauty magazines with exaggerated and unfounded claims drives business better than a scientific discourse in any medical peer-reviewed magazine. (and much easier to get published) Even the pharmaceutical industry has this figured out which is why almost one-third of television ads today are for some prescription drug. The bottom line is the ‘Y-Lift’, while based on a few known plastic surgery procedures, is an unproven amalgamation which most likely benefits the treatment provider more than the recipient.
What matters: The debate between non-surgical or surgical facelifts can be debated ad nausem. Both may be appropriate for any patient under the right circumstances. The practitioners of both will hotly contest each one’s merits. But the non-surgical boom of cosmetic procedures speaks to an important issue that is rarely discussed…value. What does one get for what one pays? The non-surgical Y-facelift retails between $4,000 and $8,000 for results that will last one year, maybe slightly more. The price of non-surgery, when looked at long-term, is frequently more than that of actual surgery…with results that are not nearly as long-lasting.
There are many factors that go into deciding what is the best facial rejuvenation procedure. Never forget that the concept of value in plastic surgery, like any other retail purchase, is extremely important. But the medical merits of such procedures should not be determined by what is written in a trendy magazine whose sole intent is newsstand and ad sales, not satisfied and happy patients.
Dr. Barry Eppley
Tags: dr barry eppley, facelift, indianapolis, injectable fillers, non-surgical facelift, plastic surgery
Posted in Newspaper Articles | No Comments »
|
|
|
|