Talk:Breast reconstruction

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 November 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paj204. Peer reviewers: Lesmpremd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

MUSC Wikipedia Editing Medicine Elective
Hi, Wikipedian. I'm a fourth year medical student at Medical University of South Carolina who will be editing this article over the next few weeks as part of a medical writing elective course that I'm taking. I plan on using the breast augmentation article as an exemplar (B-class, mid-importance rating) and will adhere to the wikiproject medicine manual of style. I will be working on improve the entire article, updating it with the latest information, and adjusting the language to make it more accessible to a lay audience while still preserving the scientific/medical detail. Please reach out to me with any recommendations, comments, or critiques. I look forward to working with anyone who has an interest in improving this article.

Sections to Prioritize: Timing; Techniques

Resources for Basic Information: Neligan's Plastic Surgery: Volume 1: Principles & Volume 5: Breast; Neligan's Core Procedures in Plastic Surgery; Munhoz's Atlas of Reconstructive Breast Surgery

Project Timeline: If there are any specific recommendations or changes that you all would like to see incorporated, please let me know, and I will prioritize those as well. Thanks! --Paj204 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Week 1 (11/18/19-11/22/19) - read background information; identify additional resources; determine the need for new article sections
 * Week 2 (11/25/19-11/29/19) - continue to read; take notes on info in resources; begin article edits
 * Week 3 (12/2/19-12/6/19) - complete online edits of article in preparation for peer review
 * Week 4 (12/9/19-12/13/19) - receive peer & wikicommunity feedback; incorporate feedback into the article, making changes where necessary

Sounds like a good plan! --Emilybrennan (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm
I'm new to wikipedia but a long-time advocate of plain-langauge in engineering (my field), medicine (my wife's) and law (which I interact with). If we are talking about HUMANS, when is "contralateral", (e.g. "of the affected breast and also the contralateral side") a better word choice than "other"? Dogs, hamsters, etc, I grant might have use for the term "contralateral breast". But for the vast majority of women and men dealing with breast health issues, "other" is just as precise and much more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.39.40 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi whats your name .i am also new Nia brown (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm
I'm new and would like to flesh out this entry (pun intended). Do I just do it?--Islandtyger 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Reply to last post:

As of July 2006, the FDA has never approved silicone gel breast implants. The last post stated that silicone gel breast implants are available to women under 18 with parental consent, but that is not accurate.

Silicone gel breast implants are availabe in the US under a "public health" exemption, only under certain circumstances, only for reconstruction.

For data on the safety and effectiveness of breast reconstruction with implants, go to www.fda.gov, click "medical devices", then click "breast implants" and then click FDA "Panel Information." That will take you to the April 2005, October 2003, and March 2000 meetings of the General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Committee. Each meeting includes a "Summary Panel Memorandum" which is a research summary written by FDA scientists, based on the companies' data.

Shouldn't this article have some footnotes? Drzuckerman 02:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Dr Zuckerman

As of March 2006, the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has not formally approved silicone-filled implant devices as safe and effective because the manufacturers have not provided to the FDA adequate scientific evidence to prove their safety and effectiveness. Although these implants have been in use for nearly 30 years, the number of women who, now or in the past, have had silicone-filled implants is not known. Estimates generally exceed two million women.

The FDA is concerned that there is not enough information about possible health problems from the use of these devices. For this reason, the FDA has called for detailed scientific studies and will permit manufacturers to make these devices available while the data is being collected.

Silicone-filled implants are being provided by certain manufacturers to patients who meet very specific criteria. To receive silicone-filled implants one must agree to participate in a clinical study, one must be a female of any age (under 18 must have parental consent), have a condition appropriate for breast reconstruction in which saline-filled implants are not suitable, have adequate tissue available to cover the implant(s), complete a screening by a surgeon and be willing to sign an "informed consent" document which gives information about the breast implant(s)- confirming a commitment to following the study requirements and acceptance of the potential risks involved.

The study is designed to collect 5 year data about possible health problems associated with breast implants. These data will be used to help determine if these implants are both safe and effective. If they are proven safe and effective, they will continue to be available. If the data from the studies does not show that they are safe and effective to the satisfaction of the FDA, they may not be available in the future.


 * Information obtained from the McGhan Medical Corporation Silicone-Filled Breast Implant Adjunct Clinical Study Patient Informed Consent document.

Removed from text:


 * Silicone gel implants have recently been re-approved for use in the USA after studies found little connection between the implants and auto-immune disorders.

I couldn't find any websites confirming this. Not even the FDA website. And at any rate it would not be a reapproval as they were never approved before. Saline ones weren't approved until 2000. If anyone can find that they have been reapproved please reinsert. --rmhermen

Image caption
So what exactly are those two images about? Before-after? Success-failure? Aroused-impotent? --Menchi 06:04 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't really remember exactly, they were both breast implant failures. Two different kinds though.  I may have put that information in the image description.  Otherwise the information can be found by a simple search fda.gov.  MB 13:58 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Article focus
This article doesn't discuss breast reconstruction. It seems to discuss the history of implants. We already have an article on breast implants. Shouldn't we actually discuss reconstruction in this article? &mdash;Frecklefoot 03:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. I vote we merge the information from here into breast implant and then delete this article.... unless someone actually wants to write about reconstructive surgery. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I (finally) took care of this. I merged the existing information into the breast implant article, as well as the images. The new content applies only to "breast reconstruction," as it should. Feel free to edit mercilessly. :-) &mdash;Frecklefoot 15:12, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Surgery Images
Hi,

In my site I have images from a breast reconstruction procedure. I think the images are of great value especially for someone who has to undergo of such an operation. If you think so too feel free to add it in the external links section 

Janet's law
It's been suggested by an anonymous editor that the federal statute re. insurance coverage is commonly known as "Janet's Law" after Janet Franquet. As someone who actually deals with this issue on a day to day basis, I can tell you that it just is factually incorrect to assert that it's is commonly referred to in that context and if you refer to medical or surgical textbooks which touch on this, absent is any mention of the political context. Now you can google this and find mention of ms. franquet on tertiary sources, if you refer to authoritative sites like the Federal DOJ page, the American Cancer Society, and other sites dealing with breast cancer, any reference to her is absent. Mention of it is just peripheral errata to the existence of the law itself and the practical consequences of the legislation. Droliver 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As another plastic surgeon who has been in practice for over 13 years and also deals with breast cancer on a daily basis, you are wrong. The legislation is called Janet's Law, the reference is cited below. The legislation was named after her at a ceremony at Memorial Sloan Kettering Center in NY, a ceremony that I was present at. The woman sacrificed much for this effort. I can't quite understand your motivation for deleting her name. She should be honored for what she accomplished, as she was, not forgotten. 26 August, 2007, 1144am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.13.232 (talk) 15:51, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia article on breast reconstruction is not a forum for "honoring" people per se. If you look at how this is treated in primary sources, no mention of this legislation of "janet's law" is commonly made. The only relevant thing about that legislation is that it changed how breast reconstruction was considered in the US. As this is nominally an article meant for an international audience, I'm not even sure a US-centric law merits mention, much less a peripheral examination of context surrounding it. This isn't a slight, but it's an attempt at not turning wikiedia articles into a meandering hodge podge of factoidsDroliver 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The law was named for her. I was there. There is ample documentation in print. You are not the authority on Wikipedia for plastic surgery and you do not get to be the final arbiter as to what is printed on this site or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.153.152 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * SIGH! in the context of an internationally directed article on breast reconstruction (not legislation surrounding American breast reconstruction) it is not really contextually appropriate to include the factoid you keep reinserting. The signifigant information is the existence of the law itself, not one of many individuals who's stories were part of the legislative process. Mentioning her particular surgeon is even further fringe info that makes even less sense. Please refer to contemporary medical texts for how this subject is mentioned. ThanksDroliver 03:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20150329092016/http://drsonderman.com:80/breast/direct-to-implant-breast-reconstruction/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I have been assigned to peer review this article for a wiki Project Medicine course. The recent edits were to focus on timing and types of reconstruction. I believe the article to focus on these. Organization is very easy to follow. The article answers may question I would have about and implant based procedure. The information is succinct and easy to follow. There are many strong sources used for the article but there is a paragraph that seems to be lacking a bit in this area. Though the information is sound in the timing section using some resources to validate the information would be a good change to the article. I believe since wikipedia is a community setting that the previous information where it states "citation needed" is appropriately noted. This allows the reader to know that though the information may be sound it need a proven source. The language used in the article is easy to understand and reads as a narrative on implant based reconstruction. There are numerous helpful images and graphics to demonstrate ideas presented in the article. I believe the focus of this article edit was accomplished. My only suggestion would be expanding on possible statistics in the shift from delayed to early reconstruction. This may add some back ground information and numbers that also support the claim within the article not just in the sources that are cited. Overall I believe the components that my classmate worked on in this article are well thought out and executed. Thank you. --Lesmpremd (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)