Search

Introduction: Peri‐implant breast seroma is a late clinical presentation of reconstructive surgery or augmentation mammoplasty with breast implants. Pre‐operative cytological evaluation of the peri‐implant breast seroma is a common clinical approach, showing mainly an inflammatory reaction or more rarely a breast implant‐associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Herein, we reported the role of cytology in the evaluation of peri‐implant breast seroma and its critical pre‐operative implications. Methods: Eight cases of peri‐implant breast seroma from files at Luigi Vanvitelli University were identified between January and December 2017. In all cases, seroma was aspirated; cytospins were performed and stained by Papanicolaou stain; finally, in all cases, a cell block was obtained for immunocytochemical evaluation and, in one case, for FISH to detect ALK1‐gene translocation. Results: The median age of patients was 48 years and the mean time between the implant placement and the occurrence of peri‐implant breast seroma was 18 months. Microscopic examination showed breast implant‐associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in one case, aspecific inflammatory reaction in six cases and silicon‐associated reaction in one case. Conclusions: Peri‐implant breast seroma may be caused by several pathological conditions with different clinical behaviour. A proper cytological approach to peri‐implant breast seroma allows a correct differential diagnosis between inflammatory conditions and breast implant‐associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and an appropriate management of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Ha based dermal fillers in recent years aroused big interest in the area of cosmetic surgery for the rejuvenation of the dermis. There is not a ideal dermal filler (DF) for all applications and in commerce there are many types of DF that differ for their chemical-physical properties. So the aim of this paper is to correlate the rheological and physical properties of different DF to their clinical effectiveness., Materials and Methods: In this frame the samples have been subjected to oscillation dynamic rheological and steady shear measurements., Results: Our results demonstrate that the viscoelastic properties of different DF varie strongly also considering fillers of the same family. Furthermore it was found that the materials physical properties influence significantly the performance of dermal filler. In particular the clinical data appear to correlate with the concentration of the polymer and with the product between the concentration and the percent elasticity, so these should be crucial parameters for the clinical performance of DF., Conclusion: So rheological data can be a tool to have an indication on the efficacy and longevity of DF but it has to be considered that production technology, in-vivo-conditions, injector skills and experience influence them also significantly.