| EDITORIAL T Flickr Affiliated partners: Twitter
HE ONGOING PIP BREAST IMPLANT SCANDAL HAS CERTAINLY ROCKED the aesthetic industry in recent months. A review by the French government in December, following reports concerning the rupture rate of implants and the death of one woman as a result of a breast anaplastic large cell lymphoma, led to a similar review in the UK, with further countries expected to follow suit. At the time of going to press, we were still awaiting the UK health secretary,
Andrew Lansley’s, verdict on whether the 40 000 women in the UK are to be advised to remove their implants, though the estimated UK rupture rate is much lower than the 3.6–5% quoted in France. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) and the British Association
of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) have voiced their concerns. Even if the rupture rate in the UK is lower than that of France, it is still slightly over the average rupture rate of 1% for all types of breast implant. Indeed, the main issue — other than who would be responsible for paying for an
It calls into question the standards of regulation
explantation — is that the silicone used in these PIP implants were not of medical grade and therefore, were never fit to be implanted into humans. Furthermore, the French regulatory body Afssaps had reported that the mechanical strength of the fillers was not in compliance with standards and that there was an ‘irritant’ behaviour of the gel, which was not seen in other brands. It is a worrying thought that so many women were implanted with
throughout the industry on an international scale.
these faulty implants, not only in the UK and France, but even as far afield as South America. And it further calls into question the standards of regulation throughout the industry on an international scale, and not just in individual countries. It is terrible to think that faulty, sub-standard implants were even approved for use in the first place. While the PIP company has been closed down by the French
government, it has no money to pay for corrective surgery for the women that need it. The French government have since said that taxpayers would fund explant procedures. However, it will not pay for
new implants if the original surgery was not done for post-breast cancer reconstruction reasons. If other countries decide to follow suit, this will be a bitter blow for the many women who have undergone implantation for more aesthetic reasons and have little chance of receiving any compensations. It will also be a bitter blow for the industry as a whole. While the surgeons were using
Retweet
implants that they assumed were safe, the lack of data on rupture rates is worrying when one considers the confusion caused in this regard. It is also a shame that the profession has again been called into disrepute following a year
of botched surgeries and unlicensed physicians. What will happen after this current scandal is as yet unclear, but will almost certainly change the way in which we practice.
MySpace StumbleUpon
Rosalind Hill Managing Editor, PRIME
rosalind.hill@informa.com;
twitter.com/PrimeJournal
Digg
Mixx
WE ARE LIVE ON TWITTER AND LINKEDIN Join PRIME’s editorial team for the latest updates in aesthetic and
Skype @PrimeJournal Follow us ciousFriendFeed Flickr YouTube Technorati
anti-ageing medicine, debates, and interaction with your peers and colleagues, conference information and special offers
Search for Prime Journal
Twitter LinkedIn
prime-journal.com | January/February 2012 Retweet ❚ 3
Regulation
❚
Breast Augmentation Web Marketing ❚
❚
Stem Cell Research
❚
Industry News
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AESTHETIC AND ANTI-AGEING MEDICINE Jan/Feb 2012
Volume 2 ❙ Issue 1
WITH HYALURONIC ACID
ENHANCING THE MID-FACE
CARBON DIOXIDE THERAPY IN AESTHETICS
PREVENTIVE
MEDICINE ONCOLOGY
SCARS Therapeutic strategies for the treatment of
Jan/Feb 2012 ❙ Volume 2
❙ Issue 1
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AESTHETIC AND ANTI-AGEING MEDICINE
prime-journal.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92