Breast Feeding


Documentation Report By Pierre J. J. B. Blais, B. Sc., Ph.D., C. Chem., F.C.I.C.

BREAST FEEDING AND PROSTHESES
Breast prostheses have been implanted in large numbers for more than forty years and users have ranged from late adolescence to individuals of advanced age. The socio-economic profile of this cohort is tilted towards individuals with an age range of 25-40 and is rapidly dropping as promotion targets an even younger, image conscious population. Fertility and lactation concerns for such a group may not be at the forefront when a decision is made to undergo implantation. However, the issue resurfaces several years post-implantation as regnancies develop in a significant fraction of users. Nearly all consumer oriented material as well as surgeons’ reinforce the view that breast feeding is not only possible but desirable even for implanted patients. Implanted mothers therefore expect to retain their capacity to safely breast feed.

Such an expectation is illogical. Implantation of a foreign object in the breast irreversibly modifies the breast structure. Even with removal of the prosthesis, the structure and physiology of the gland are not restored to their original state. The very act of inserting such an object in the breast has lasting and irreversible consequences, all of which militate strongly against safe breast feeding. The changes greatly increase the probability of complications to the user as the breast engorges and tissue is strained. Concurrent physiologic and chemical changes in the breast area impact adversely on the amount and quality of milk produced by lactating mothers where insertion of a foreign object and extensive surgery has been performed.

The belief that breast feeding is possible and safe for implant users is novel thinking. In the sixties and seventies, breast feeding was not deemed desirable for implant users. Some physicians did not even regard it as possible. Their views were based on clinical, biomechanical, biochemical and physiologic considerations. Prostheses had mechanically damaging features known to modify the breast eventually damaging the vasculature and the lactation apparatus over the long term. The high impurity levels associated with implants, in particular oils similar to what had been used in connection with injected silicone augmentation, were known to impact adversely on lactation. The experience of oil-injected patients produced sufficient information to support the view that prosthetically modified breasts were unsuited for breast feeding.

In the following years, the issue remained dormant and no major investigation was performed. Instead, hearsay and fiction surrounded the issue and it became accepted amongst the lay public and some general practitioners that cosmetically augmented mothers could breast feed without problems. Specialists in surgery of the breast, and in particular plastic surgeons, knew otherwise but the information was not shared.

European publications of the seventies contraindicated breast feeding based on empirical data gathered from users of the previous decade. The advice against breast feeding was more a matter of cosmetic and comfort as opposed to risk to infants. It was reasoned that avoidance of breast feeding would minimize post-lactation ptosis, breast involution and connective tissue distention within the cosmetically modified breast. Microbiological issues were considered but not given prominence but it was recognized that colonization of the implant site and intracapsular mastitis would be factors that could spread to the lactation apparatus with time.

Collapse of the lactation system is a logical expectation from surgical damage incidental to implant insertion and gross contamination of the breast by dispersible reactive debris. Similar results are expected from the introduction of implants that exert continuous pressure on the breast gland and the vasculature. Chronic, uncontrollable fibrosis further complicate the situation. Combination of these factors with recurrent low level infective processes will alter the gland over time and severe discomfort is expected upon engorgement prior to lactation.

Anatomic, biomechanical and physiologic considerations of the prosthetically modified breast clearly demonstrate why breast feeding is impractical and destructive. The use of a retromammary implant eventually causes pressure atrophy of the breast gland and collapse of the ducts which convey fluid to the nipple. This is known within some circles who have noted that there is chronic swelling of the nipple areolar complex in augmented patients. The phenomenon persists for many years until necrotic processes drastically diminish the fluid transport within the anterior of the breast. It is rare when atrophy is not present in surgically augmented breasts after implants have been in situ for 2-4 years. Irrigation within the critical area is reduced and large prominent veins appear in the periphery of the breast implant, usually close to the skin. Compression causes focal ischemia and oxygen depletion. These factors militate towards failure of the milk-producing system.

Upon cessation of breast feeding, the breast returns to its initial augmented volume but tissues and ligaments are stretched and the patient re-encounters ptosis and involution of the gland, further reducing the breast volume. Thus, the cosmetic benefits of the augmentation may be lost and re-do surgery to regain the esthetic effect may be undertaken.

Formal fertility and lactation studies have never been conducted rigorously by opponents or proponents of breast feeding. Only superficial surveys and anecdotal claims of successful breast feeding by individuals who had recently received implants appear in the literature. The work is oriented at reassurinq prospective unsophisticated implant candidates as opposed to documenting the impact of breast feeding on existing implant users and infants.

Breast prostheses are not conventional medical products. Throughout the years they have been a heterogeneous mixture of low quality products with high levels of impurities and features which made their users vulnerable to chronic adverse processes. They induce infections that can remain dormant for many years, producing  destructive local effects and high quantities of microbiological metabolites. The capsule around the implant does not impede dissemination of prosthetic debris. It only delays release. Capsules deteriorate and remodel with time to eventually release their content. Even popular contracture treatments foster infective  complications by releasing entities captive within the intracapsular space thus spreading the effect of colonization to distal parts of the breasts.

Evidence of necrosis and tissue degeneration surrounding implants is found in nearly all users with implant dwell times exceeding three years. This is seen in mammographic studies where large quantities of calcific debris are shown associated with tissue deterioration and fat necrosis. Such effects strongly militate against breast feeding.

One Response to Breast Feeding

  1. Claudia says:

    Implants sure made my lactation experience miserable and barely possible.

    First let me give you some background….I received my first set of saline, textured implants when I was 17, but because they made me look deformed (like I had Capri Sun juice bags inserted under my nipples) I had them replaced seven years later with ones that were silicone (and textured).

    Within weeks of my revision surgery, a had yet another surgery. The textured silicone implants were replaced with smooth, silicone ones, and then they were placed under the muscle. See, textured implants are easily visible in thin patients; so smooth ones are often preferred as well as placement under the muscle to disguise the implant’s boarders (edges).

    A few months later, I was twirling around on the ice rink with a buddy of mine, and he lost his balance, pulling me down with him. I landed on my left breast and the implant was pushed out from the sub muscular position to the sub glandular one…What luck I have! I had a mammogram and it showed no signs of rupture.

    Fast forward three years to the birth of my first child….I was so excited to breast feed until I actually attempted it. I developed the excruciating infection called “Thrush” (a yeast infection in my breasts), which went undiagnosed for seven weeks until I insisted to the doctors that I had it, but I digress…

    I was unable to completely satisfy my daughter’s hunger by breast feeding–even upon the first day home! I then went to the Lactation Consultant, who then measured my baby’s weight before and after feeding and then had me pump after I nursed. I found that I made barely 1.5 oz per breast–if even that much.

    The Lactation Consultant assumed I had an inadequate milk supply because my pre-implant size was a small A–aka, not enough breast tissue to produce milk. So I did everything to increase supply.

    I took tons of herbal supplements, from Fenugreek to Nettle. I took Metaclopramide (Reglan), which increases prolactin levels, but can cause great anxiety and agitation as well. I also pumped 8-10 times per day–even at night, and in addiction to nursing. But my baby still had to be supplemented with formula! She eventually quit at age 6months.

    With my next two daughters, I was bound and determined to successfully nurse. I had heard that nursing was easier and milk supplies increased after subsequent children. So I thought I could do it. And I assumed I did since they would only nurse. They refused to take a bottle–I think they survived on my milk alone because they were smaller than my first daughter and thus required less caloric intake. (I hope I am not being confusing. It’s 2:35 am and I’m only half awake).

    Last, much to the chagrin of my oldest daughter, my youngest two girls both tandem nursed (nursed at the same time) and kept nursing beyond the point when most children stop. That may be odd, but the weirdest part is that they would both fight over my left breast–this is the side on which I fell when I hit the ice and which, years later, I also fell when I smacked the water at high speed after falling off of a raft pulled behind a speed boat. (I suspect it may have ruptured.) And they rejected my right side because it had formed a capsule contracture, and was much firmer and uncomfortable to nurse on.

    So now I have one saggy, possibly ruptured implant and one that feels like an overripe orange–not too, terribly hard, but still ball-shaped and firm.

    I put off replacing these nasty implants until I was able to dry up my milk supply, becsuse that is a prerequisite for implant surgery (so as to not introduce bacteria that is present in the ducts).

    There is no way I will go without implants now, because I was a small A way back then and I would feel disfigured now with skinny, deflated balloon-type sacs or massive scarring after getting a corrective lift, that would resemble a mastectomy surgery scar.

    I only wish I had originally gone with implants placed trans auxiliary (through the armpit) and completely under the muscle and fascia. From what I have read, part of the problem with failure to produce enough milk is because implant surgery often cuts nerves needed to stimulate milk production. I had mine placed through the infra mamary fold (under the breast) and I can attest to this being true, since I have marked numbness on the underside of my breasts.

    But like this article says, it could very well be more than that. Simply the presence of a foreign object pressing up on the milk ducts, could be enough to impede milk production and supply. And I can tell you, it feels incredibly disheartening to not be able to feed one’s child–all because of a vain choice, made many years in the past.

    –C

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *