You are logged out

06
JUN
2017

Response to “Comments on ‘Commentary on: The Modern Polyurethane-Coated Implant in Breast Augmentation: Long-Term Clinical Experience’”

Response to “Comments on ‘Commentary on: The Modern Polyurethane-Coated Implant in Breast Augmentation: Long-Term Clinical Experience’”

James Frame, FRCS (Plast)
Aesthet Surg J (2017) 37 (5): NP58-NP59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx016
Published: 15 March 2017

I am delighted to comment upon the reply1 to my Commentary2 on the article by Pompei et al published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal.3 Despite the journal’s invitation to Pompei et al to reply to my Commentary, they have not actually addressed many of the issues that I had raised and if they are writing an article with a generic title they must consider all manufacturers of modern polyurethane implants. I stand by my Commentary and their limited reply confirms that my comments were correct.

They quite rightly reiterate that the silicone elastomer component of polyurethane implants is different from the first generation elastomers, but I had commented that the polyurethane layer pore size and thickness is not different and most surgeons are aware that it is the polyurethane layer and not…

Letter to the Editor

Read the full article here: ASJ Article

© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com

UKAAPSAdmin
UKAAPS was formed to play a fundamental role in educating the public on the benefits and risks associated with Plastic Surgery. UKAAPS is the only UK association whose membership is only available to fully accredited plastic surgeons that practice non-surgical aesthetics and aesthetic/cosmetic surgery.

Leave a Reply

Top