I agree with the articles attached provided a person uses the types of implants referenced. The smart choice is cohesive gel "gummy bear" implants. They feel natural, the gel does not "leak" out like other implants if a defect in the shell occurs. Fantastic product with very low chance of repeat surgical procedures needed. More likely to have external trauma to the area causing a problem to the body than the implant itself. In actuality, you can cut these implants in half and the contents don't migrate, hence the reference to gummy bears, the candy. Originally Posted by equipeelerCertainly promising, but no real history. Not sure I’d want to be one of the early members of the cohort (or guinea pig) to see how they age in situ. It’s just nuts to get a surgery you don’t need.
Certainly promising, but no real history. Not sure I’d want to be one of the early members of the cohort (or guinea pig) to see how they age in situ. It’s just nuts to get a surgery you don’t need. Originally Posted by TexTushHog
The United States was behind the curve on approval of the gummy bear implants. They have been approved and used in European and other countries for decades. It's all because the cohesive gel is a form of silicone and the US it was not politically correct to be for such a product. Many surgeons tend to use specific types of implants due to specific reasons. Longevity of the implant is not the primary reason a surgeon picks a specific implant. Gummy bears generally never need to be replaced. Some doctors don't like gummy bears because they are pretty form stable and require a little larger incision to implant. They generally need to be introduced from a base of the breast approach. They are two large to place with an incision around the areola. Originally Posted by equipeelerArtificial intervertebral disc had a history in Europe before approval here, too, but there have been substantial problems with those living up to their advertised potential. There is no panacea in any field. It’s all risky.