Very difficult breast implants revision case of extremely high complexity on a patient who, due to a digestive nutritional disorder which caused her poor healing ability, suffered of null adhesion of breast implants to the surrounding tissues and thus failed to form attachment to the ribcage in spite the implants were of top quality and well textured; this, associated to a very weak cutaneous and glandular cover, lead to a bottoming out downwards dislocation displacement of the prostheses and significant grade of tenting close to be a full symmastia.
Essentially there coexist two problems of breast implants pocket definition; on one side the pocket was over expanded at the lower pole due to the bottoming out of the implants and the poor firmness quality of the patient's breast, and on the other side the implants, especially the left one, moved towards and expanded the inner cleavage of the breasts, creating a tenting effect which in some positions or with the brassiere on allowed rubbing of implants in symmastia.
As a direct and evident consequence of the former the implants did lose their centricity according to the nipple areola complex, becoming largely eccentric inwards and downwards; this can be clearly noticed by the landmark inframammary scars belonging to the first intervention; also the nipples were pointing up and laterally, which is exactly to the opposite direction of the migration of the implants, since inwards migration or symmastia entails outwards nipple orientation and the downwards bottoming out leads to star gazing nipples.
Due to the aforementioned phenomena there is a problematic over dissection and over growth of skin at the lower and medial poles of the breasts, which need to be reattached to the ribcage, being the perfect candidate for a multipoint capsulorrhaphy which allows both redefinition of the prosthetic pockets and eradication of the over expanded excess of skin; due to the particularities of the case and in order to prevent a new failure of adhesion, the patient opted for polyurethane coated implants which provide the highest grade of tissue adhesion from them all in the market thanks to their bio velcro effect, anatomical shaped and cohesive gel filled, significantly larger than the previous ones due to express patient request.
These revision capsulorrhaphies and other revisional techniques have to be performed via areolar approach to obtain full visualization and complete access within the breast pocket; however this patient had a previous inframammary incision so she was offered two options, which were new areolar incision or extending the already existing inframammary scar to allow safe performance of the revisional procedure, opting for the second one in spite the scars lengthening.
The capsulorrhaphy entailed a vertical row of anchors at the inner side of the pocket to redefine the cleavage from the 3rd to the 6th rib arcs and another horizontal row of anchor sutures redefining the submammary crease; anchors are separated between them 10 to maximum 15 mm, otherwise they could fail or leave hammock effects between their gaps.
The combination of the multipoint capsulorrhaphy and the highly adhesive polyurethane coated implants lead to an impressive result, full correction of cleavage tenting and symmastia, no recurrence of the bottoming out and perfect centricity of implants beneath the nipple areola complex, without any kind of nipple orientation distortion.
PRODUCT PURCHASE | STANDARD QUOTATION | COMBO SPECIAL APPLIED | DISCOUNT % | DISCOUNT € | FINAL QUOTATION |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Breast implants anatomical polyurethane | 7.366,48€ | Breast Implants | 20% | -1.473,30€ | 5.893,18€ |
Breast revision long | 6.146,00€ | Breast Implants | 20% | -1.229,20€ | 4.916,80€ |
TOTAL | 13.512,48€ | 20,00% | -2.702,50€ | 10.809,98€ |
Due to the competitiveness scenario of the markets most plastic surgery clinics and plastic surgeons feel forced to invest large sums of money into advertising and marketing campaigns; this non medical additional cost is always and necessarily charged on top of the final price paid by patients, leading thus to an overprice of surgeries and treatments. No one patient wishes to bear that financial burden embedded in the surgical costs, furthermore neither surgeons nor clinics are happy to increase their retail prices and penalize their customers with costs not bringing any kind of special medical benefit, safety enhancements or results improvement; the promotion budget aims only to disseminate the public knowledge of a services provider and raise the awareness about its presence to potential customers, but not to make the service or the product a better one.
Seems like this model is a no-way-out labyrinth from which no one can be freed, furthermore it is such a tempting, easy and hassle-free way that actually most patients and plastic surgery providers are locked into it, happily or with resignation, paying a high price due to being non collaborative; however there is an ideal alternative, based on keeping up a good hard work based on a strive for providing quality service and achieving patients' satisfaction, which necessarily requires the decided support of the clients and somehow their involvement in such virtuous business model grounded on top-notch results
When plastic surgery providers and patients do actively engage into a collaborative economy scenario a win-win basis is set for their relationship, since the clinics and surgeons obtain the best promotion ever possible with no budget for marketing investment and the patients get in return rid of any additional and unnecessary costs; such a price reduction does not represent any loss in the quality of the treatment they are receiving, furthermore this saving achieved will actually reward customers with a reinforced confidence and guarantee the service providers will strive to perform the best job possible and obtain results second to none.
It is not a paradox or contradiction; under a collaborative economy umbrella plastic surgery patients enjoy a greater plus of confidence that clinics and surgeons will do their very best and beyond to satisfy their customers, in spite the price is lower than in marketing-based non collaborative models; plastic surgery providers who found their business sustainability on the pillars of exclusively or mainly incremental budget investment in ongoing promotion campaigns do have little incentive in achieving first-class results and the best patient experiences, since their business model is not based on returning patients after word-of-mouth dissemination of their reputation but on the attraction of cold clients with sophisticated advertising methods of higher or lesser moral acceptability, attracting customers as parachutists randomly landing on unknown land, which is a perverse business model frequently leading to an unavoidable degradation of safety and results quality besides an uncontrollable increase in costs and prices; this marketing-based model creates no incentives to keep up the good work and pushes the prices higher on and on due to require increasing promotional investments.
On the other side, which is definitely our side, clinics and surgeons who rely solely or mostly their existence and survival in the competitive plastic surgery market enjoying the widespread of their excellence extended by their own patients results and satisfaction, like a mill driven by the winds of prestige, have the strongest ever incentive to be the best service providers around, sourced from the support of happy clients and their operated cases as proof of their excellent jobs; needless to say such supporters, the patients, have to enjoy a share of this benefit so that the incentive is reciprocal; under this scenario clinics and surgeons strive to provide the best service and accordingly patients release and transfer in a fair exchange the materials and tools required to build a marketing-budget-free and virtuous business model which creates the perfect incentives to build the best sponsorship-free reputation, based on the grounds of medical quality thus allowing prices control within affordability thanks to the minimal cost of its maintenance.
This is the deal; patients give in our favor the release and transfer of the intellectual property, the rights of image, the medical records and the personal data of their cases for scientific dissemination, medical teaching, public communication, commercial promotion, advertising marketing, commercial exploitation and disclosure in general, and they receive in exchange a compensating remuneration of a -20% discount from the standard price list for our treatments, as it is publicly visible by default in all the prices and quotations on our website.
As can be observed our visible prices are highly competitive if compared with other plastic surgery providers, actually the difference is approximately a -20% from the average price of each particular treatment in other clinics and surgeons from similar economical areas and countries of comparable development; this is not due to any quality or safety downgrading but to our collaborative business model; in other words, the budget which theoretically should be invested in marketing and promotion campaigns is discounted from the retail prices and, unlike other plastic surgery providers, is not wasted into pointless advertising to patients which entails no kind of added value for them; such campaigns are replaced with our superb results publicized thanks our patients support by letting us use their cases' Before & After and Intraoperative & Technical images and medical details; this explains that price gap between us and other clinics and surgeons.
Print screen alert
You attempted an unauthorized action. All contents of this site are private and protected. Print screen are not allowed. We have reported with your data location to prevent any ilegal action against the protected contents of this website.