Pioneers in Madrid in the technique
“No Touch” Keller Funnel Breast Augmentation
We want to share the latest refinement of our breast augmentation technique, the “NO TOUCH” technique using the Keller Funnel device.
It is a novel medical device that allows any type of implant to be introduced into the surgical pocket in a less traumatic and cleaner way than using the conventional technique. The concept is simple but very useful. A plastic shaped like a pastry bag, very slippery, through which the prosthesis slides until it enters the interior of the surgical pocket.
Why is the KELLER FUNNEL “NO TOUCH” technique important in breast augmentation surgery?
Based on the latest studies on capsular contracture, the main cause related to the appearance of capsular contracture is the contamination of the implant with bacteria found on the patient’s skin at the time of insertion. This is why sterility is so important in the surgical process. By using the Keller Funnel we can ensure that the prosthesis does not come into contact with the patient’s skin, and even that not even the surgeon or nurse can touch it with their gloves. It is about going from the traditional “minimal touch”, in which the skin is washed with antiseptic and only the surgeon touches the implant, to “no touch”: the prosthesis is not touched by the surgeon or the nurse, nor does it even enter in contact with the patient’s skin.
ADVANTAGES:
Improves sterility by reducing bacterial contamination
Reduces the risk of capsular contracture: As a result of not coming into contact with the skin and reducing bacterial contamination, the risk of capsular contracture is reduced by half according to recent studies.
Reduces the risk of infection: Although the risk of infection in prosthetic breast surgery is extremely low, reducing bacterial contamination, logically, further reduces the probability of infection.
Reduces implant trauma (fewer early prosthesis breakages): The moment of greatest trauma in the life of a prosthesis (breast, gluteal, twin…) is the moment of placing it in the pocket. Trying to insert a very large implant can cause an internal fracture of the silicone gel or even deteriorate the implant, which would explain some cases of early implant breakage. Using the Keller Funnel, the implant suffers less as it literally slides into the pocket.
Less trauma to the incision (which improves healing). The less force and friction we use to insert the implant, the better the healing will be.
Possibility of reducing the size of the scar: In fact, the reason why Dr Keller designed this device was to be able to insert his silicone gel implants through small incisions, just as he did with saline implants.
Is there any level of scientific evidence regarding the use of the Keller Funnel?
Not only does it make sense that the risk of infection and capsular contracture is reduced, but it has recently been demonstrated in a 6-year study, with 2800 patients, in seven different centers and with different surgeons, that the use of the Keller Funnel reduced the rate of capsular contracture by half with a very high level of scientific evidence. The study, undoubtedly one of the most interesting in breast augmentation surgery of the last decade, has just been recently published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal , which is the journal of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS).
Does Implant Insertion with a Funnel Decrease Capsular Contracture? A Preliminary Report. Flugstad NA, Pozner JN, Baxter RA, Creasman C, Egrari S, Martin S, Messa CA 3rd, Oliva A, Schlesinger SL, Kortesis BG.
Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Dec 15.
Furthermore, in the Clinics of Plastic Surgery, In their latest review on capsular contracture in 2015 by doctors Deva and Chong, the use of a Keller Funnel type device is recommended with a high degree of scientific evidence to minimize contamination of the implant when it is introduced into the surgical pocket.
Understanding the Etiology and Prevention of Capsular Contracture: Translating Science into Practice. Chong SJ 1, Deva AK 2.
Clin Plast Surg. 2015 Oct; 42(4):427-36.