Talk:Breast implant

message: This article seems to skip the best option: natural rubber (medically clean, too), why is this? ;-) --95.34.121.21 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best Option - Natural Rubber - Missing!!! 

message: I commend  on his ongoing work on the article. I am slightly curious about the extensive use of the word "device". Technically, of course, the term is corrrect - I suspect every non-autologous or non-homograft implant could be called a device, including arterial bypass grafts, heart valves, arterial coils and the like. Intrauterine devices (IUD) are even called devices. Regulators (such as the FDA) and manufacturers will use the term to distinguish between a device and a pharmaceutical. At the same time, I don't believe the article needs to emphasise the concept quite as often as we're doing now. This article is aimed at the general reader. JFW | T@lk 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would be better not to word it that way.--Taylornate (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text: On breast implant you [User:Otto Placik] have changed the description of multiple products to include the word "device". I really struggle to describe the implants under discussion as "devices" in the way that a cardiologist would describe an ICD as a "device". The multiple stacked noun terminology is a bit unnecessary if you ask me. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd be grateful if you could respond to my comments. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you may not consider them a device but they are highly regulated as a device by the FDA albeit a simple device. For their part they even consider a tongue blade a device. This is not my designation but a regulatory one. As far as multiple noun overkill, I do not understand that term. Can you clarify? Here is an example in which the FDA labels breast implants as medical devices: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm240000.htm. Otto Placik (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your longer note on my talkpage. I presume they use the term "devices" is used because it is not a pharmaceutical. The fact that the FDA classifies breast implants as devices does not mean that we need to follow the same terminology. With "multiple noun overkill" I mean that adding the word "device" after every instance of "breast implant" makes the article sound like a technical manual rather than a reader-oriented resource. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on Talk:Breast implant, where other readers can participate. JFW | T@lk 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I presume that you, as a physician subject to the laws of another country, are allowed the liberty to argue if a breast implant is a medical device. However, in the United States, I am held to a different standard and am not permitted to ignore the designation of breast implant as a medical device and all the regulations that are relevatant to that classification and punishable by law.Otto Placik (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The FDA does not regulate Wikipedia pages.--Taylornate (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Wikipedia Manual of Style does.  I have to side with JFW; we should not be playing buzzword bingo in articles and making their wording needlessly complicated and blathery.  After the first mention that the devices are in fact devices (as opposed to...?  Alien life forms?  Evil spirits from another dimension? Sandwiches?), the "device" verbiage should be trimmed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Device" 

message: Dear Mr Vasconcellos:
I understand your typographic intent, but your inaccurate textual corrections have dumbed down the article. In medical writing, my field, "accumulate" is not synonymous woth "build up", "placement" is not synonymous with "emplacement". Your identity as an administrator is fine with me, but, you do not know medical writing. The excuse about Wikipedia style is a non sequitor, given that you identified your changes as typographic, when, in fact, you are inserting editorial opinion. "According to the study" is an opinion, yours, whereas the original reports "the study indicates". Is it all right with you, may I have your permission, to correct your inaccurate substantive changes. The titles of studies quoted and noted are necessary to make the MEDICAL point; this is not a newspaper, nor a magazine article, where . . . surprise! surprise! surprsie! the writer inserts his opinion about the subject.
I reverted your sneaky substantive dumbing down, because this is a medical article, albeit one about which most everyone has an opinion, but, said opinions belong in the CRITICISM section, not snuck in throughout the TECHNICAL MEDICAL explanations. Please, remember, the article is about the Breast Implant MEDICAL DEVICE, not the sociology of the subject, that would be elsewhere.
I shall follow up, upon your kind reply.
99.88.108.102 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the anonymous alleged doctor's irate lecture about medical wording being filled with typographical and grammatical errors is very amusing to me, I have to side with the underlying gist of it. As with legal terminology, it's very difficult for "laypersons" to attempt to reword medical writing without introducing massive but non-obvious errors. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dumbing-down of a medical appliance article with opinions. 

message: I came here to study the silicone breast implant controversy but found nothing on it. All I found is study after study saying there is no risk. 
But what I want to know is why people said there was a risk, even if doctors and scientists were saying there wasn't one. I'd also like to see the history of lawsuits, such as the one which drove Dow Corning to near-bankruptcy. 
Who started the rumor that breast implants cause disease? Who promoted this belief? Who profited from it? When (if ever) did courts stop accepted expert testimony from people claiming that the implants cause disease? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged health risks

message: I have made changes to the intro and the "Types of Breast Implant device” sections to make the article more readable for the everyday audience that Wikipedia seeks to serve and to delete claims that are not widely accepted by all plastic surgeons or physicians (such as silicone implants look and feel better and submuscular is better than above the muscle) and that are not supported with credible sources.
Intro Changes
"There are three general types of breast implant device, defined by the filler material: saline, silicone, and other. The saline implant has an elastomer silicone shell filled with sterile saline solution; the silicone implant has an elastomer silicone shell filled with viscous silicone gel; and the alternative implants have had silicone shells with other fillers, such as soy oil, polypropylene string, and peanut oil.  Because of infections and other health problems, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved breast implants other than silicone and saline implants."
"Types of Breast Implant Device" Changes
Original- 
There are three types of breast implant used for mammoplasty, breast reconstruction, and breast augmentation procedures
    saline implant filled with sterile saline solution.
    silicone implant filled with viscous silicone gel.
    alternative-composition implant with miscellaneous fillers (e.g. soy oil, polypropylene string, etc.) that are no longer manufactured.
I. — Saline implants
    Surgical technology
The saline breast implant is filled with saline solution (biological-concentration salt water 0.90% w/v of NaCl, ca. 300 mOsm/L.). The early models were a relatively delicate technology that were prone to failure, usually shell breakage, leakage of the saline filler, and deflation of the prosthesis. Contemporary models of saline breast implant are made with stronger, room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) shells made of a silicone elastomer. The study In vitro Deflation of Pre-filled Saline Breast Implants (2006) reported that the rates of deflation (filler leakage) of the pre-filled saline breast implant made it a second choice for corrective breast surgery, after the silicone gel type of breast implant.[4] Nonetheless, in the 1990s, in U.S. medicine, the saline breast implant was the usual breast prosthesis applied for breast augmentation, given the unavailability of silicone implants, because of the import restrictions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    Surgical technique
The saline breast implant was developed because of concerns about silicone gel and to make it possible to use a smaller .[5] In surgical praxis, after having emplaced the empty breast implants into the implant pockets, the plastic surgeon then fills each breast prosthesis with saline solution, and, because the required insertion incisions are small, the resultant incision-scars will be smaller than the surgical scar usual to the long incision required for inserting pre-filled, silicone-gel implants. Although the saline breast implant can yield good-to-excellent results of breast size, contour, and feel, when compared to silicone-implant results, the saline implant is likelier to cause cosmetic problems such as rippling, wrinkling, and being noticeable to the eye and to the touch. This is especially true for women with very little breast tissue, and for post-mastectomy reconstruction patients; thus, silicone-gel implants are the superior prosthetic device for breast augmentation and for breast reconstruction. In the case of the woman with much breast tissue, for whom partial submuscular emplacement is the recommended surgical technique, saline breast implants can afford an aesthetic “look” of breast size and contour (though not feel) much like that afforded by the silicone implant.[6]
Changed- 
Took out opinions not shared by the majority of surgeons and physicians, and took out study that did not change the practice of medicine. Added more detail on why FDA placed import restrictions on silicone implants (because of safety concerns).
There are three types of breast implants:
    saline implant filled with sterile saline solution.
    silicone implant filled with viscous silicone gel.
    alternative-composition implant with various fillers (e.g. soy oil, polypropylene string, etc.) that are no longer manufactured because of their risks to patients.
I. — Saline implants
The saline breast implant is filled with saline solution. The early models were prone to failure, including shell breakage, leakage of the saline filler, and deflation of the prosthesis. Contemporary models of saline breast implant are made with stronger, room-temperature vulcanized (RTV) shells made of a silicone elastomer. In the 1990s, in the U.S., the saline breast implant were more popular for breast prosthesis applied for breast augmentation, given the unavailability of silicone implants, because of the safety concerns of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
    Surgical technique
The saline breast implant was developed because of concerns about silicone gel and to make it possible to use a smaller surgical incision.[5] After placing the empty breast implants into the implant pockets, the plastic surgeon then fills each breast prosthesis with saline solution, and, since the implant was deflated, the incision scars will be smaller than for silicone-gel implants, which are all filled before surgery. Compared to silicone breast implants, saline implants are more likely to cause cosmetic problems such as rippling, wrinkling, and being noticeable to the eye and to the touch. This is especially true for women with very little breast tissue, and for post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. In the case of the woman with much breast tissue, saline breast implants can create the “look” of breasts (though not feel), much like the silicone implant.[6]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efield616 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not accessible for general audience 

message: I find it slightly bizarre that Wiki's primary article on Breast Implants doesn't contain any reference to the 2011 PIP scandal, probably the largest ever recall of implanted medical devices, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly_Implant_Prothèse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.87.103 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to put information about it in with a link to the main article. Asarelah (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Poly-Implant Prothèse Scandal? 

message: The video clip at right, depicting the subject manipulating and shaking around her artificially enlarged breasts, was previously used to illustrate .  This seemed like a questionable choice because:
* The image does not really illustrate the text:
** The caption is subjective -- the implied claim that the breasts in the video represent "the most aesthetic results" is highly doubtful in my opinion
** The image/clip does not illustrate the difference between subglandular breast implants and other placements
** The breasts in question do not appear natural, so the image doesn't effectively support the text, which states that subglandular implant placement "most approximates the plane of normal breast tissue, and affords the most aesthetic results".
* The clip is rather informal and unencyclopedic in tone.  The clip's primary purpose seems to be to titillate rather than inform.
Lest my edit be reverted as "censorship", I created this section to justify my edit.  Feel free to discuss further if you disagree. 2601:644:101:9616:84FA:7A16:FEE9:9C12 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed video clip 

message: The Breast implant seems to share a substantial amount of duplicated content with Breast augmentation.  It's unclear which information should go in one or the other.
Additionally, both articles primarily focus on the medical aspects of the procedures without addressing the social/cultural aspects such as motivations for people undergoing the surgery, social and media perspectives about the procedure, opposition and/or support of the procedure, reported social outcomes for patients, etc.  For example the "Criticism" section is primarily about the medical risks of the procedure and does not include criticism of the procedure along feminist lines.
It seems like both problems could be addressed by rearranging the information such that one of the two articles focused on the subject as a surgical procedure, while the other article elaborated more on the social and cultural aspects. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623053747/http://www.silicone-review.gov.uk:80/press_notice.htm to http://www.silicone-review.gov.uk/press_notice.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090524051708/http://www.ajsp.com:80/pt/re/ajsp/abstract.00000478-200504000-00013.htm;jsessionid=G3QMCQKJ6hM5VsXLk60GQByjJfkSq7rzMMVZwKbyvpwxmmZXrQpK!-1734750035!-949856144!8091!-1 to http://www.ajsp.com/pt/re/ajsp/abstract.00000478-200504000-00013.htm;jsessionid=G3QMCQKJ6hM5VsXLk60GQByjJfkSq7rzMMVZwKbyvpwxmmZXrQpK!-1734750035!-949856144!8091!-1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103050703/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719103909/http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-society-of-plastic-surgeons/ to http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-society-of-plastic-surgeons/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126155432/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/labeling/mentor_patient_labeling_5900.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/labeling/mentor_patient_labeling_5900.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513003957/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/handbook2004/localcomplications.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/handbook2004/localcomplications.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103050703/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107040623/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/activit/sci-consult/implant-breast-mammaire/eapbi_rop_gceim_crd_2005-09-29_e.html to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/activit/sci-consult/implant-breast-mammaire/eapbi_rop_gceim_crd_2005-09-29_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Breast implant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917223436/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/indexbip.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/indexbip.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924190046/http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=225 to http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=225
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In 1998, Dow Corning Corp. settled a class-action lawsuit by agreeing to pay about $3.2 billion to an estimated 170,000 women who said they suffered injuries and illnesses caused by silicone breast implants
https://apnews.com/article/b01d04bc4ce3228e9f442ca251be2e09  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:D63:CF33:F223:ECD6 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doww Corning lawsuit