Patty

[Guest guest]

,

Still a nightmare made worse by the fact that you didn't really have to have the mastectomy in the first place. I am so sorry that this has happened to you, and I pray that justice will be served someday, someway.

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: Curry

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:41 PM

Subject: Patty

Hi Patty, I have to clarify a misunderstanding and I apolgize for not explaining more thoroughly. If I had cancer, I probably wouldn't be quite as angry as I am. You see, I didn't have cancer. I had a solid mass which had to be surgically removed. The pathology report showed pre-existing malignancy cells and said both breasts had to be removed, 'cause the alternate breast usually has the same type of cells. I told him "no," thinking he had lost his mind, but five months later another mass was growing in the same breast. When I went to see him (again), for surgical removal of the mass, he said, "We can continue to remove your breast a little at a time, while you risk the chance of a malignant tumor showing up, or we can do the bilateral mastectomy and get it over with." So he removed both breasts including my nipples, but left my lymph nodes. My primary physician referred me to this surgeon, saying he could remove the mass with little or no scarring. This Surgeon was a Plastic Surgeon. He did talk to me about reconstruction with implants, but I went another two yr's before I considered reconstruction and then I went to another p/s whom a co-worker referred me too. It wasn't until the time of my explant, that I discovered my breasts did not have to be removed. The bottom line is - This p/s removed my breasts with the hope I would want him to reconstruct me. Now you want to talk about stupid! If I had cancer, I could except all that's happened with a little less anger. But I didn't have cancer - Yet, I lost my breasts, was reconstructed with devices that ruptured inside of me, with "allot" of migrating silicone, just to lose my breasts again and now I'm left with burning in my chest 24/7, pain and no quality to my life.

These were Doctor's and I trusted them.

Love and Hugs............... Patty <fdp@...> wrote:

,

This makes me particularly sad to hear, because of all you have been through already with the cancer. As one of the ladies on Ilena's group said,

"I survived the cancer. It was the breast implants that nearly killed me."

Surviving cancer is no small feat. It is a major hurdle with life or death stakes, and I am sure most people still live in fear of it even afterwards. It is so tragic when doctors are convinced that they can "fix you up" to look normal again, giving assurances of the safety of implants when in fact it stresses the struggling body even further, and creates a whole new set of problems.

I am so sorry for what you have been through, ....we all can understand your anger!

Patty

----- Original Message -----

From: Curry

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:40 PM

Subject: Patty

Hi Patty, I have to agree with you. Especially since I've undergone two bilateral mactectomy's. I remember my first office visit with the p/s. It had already been two yr's since my bilateral mastectomy and I explained to him, that I would not even consider this if I thought there could be any future complications. It was hard enough to accept the amputation of my breasts, but to be reconstructed, just to end up losing them again would be extremely difficult for me to adjust too, both physically and mentally.

Now here I am, with so much anger in my heart, I can hardly stand it. BREAST IMPLANTS are not a necessity! They are not life sustaining! And they're not healthy! Hugs..........

[Guest guest]

Hi Patty,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. And you're not burdening me with anything. It's so nice to have my questions answered honestly and not with lies, just to cover-up wrong doing.

Now I know you're not a Doctor, so believe me when I say I'm not holding you to anything that may be said here, but I have only one more question. If what you're saying could be the problem regarding the pain and burning in my chest, then is surgery the only way to correct this? And if so, who in the world could I trust to do this surgery? I guess that was two questions.

Thank you again Patty, for your response. I'm somewhat buried under email (at the moment), but will one day catch up. Take very good care of yourself and have a wonderful and peaceful evening.

Love and Hugs............

Patty <fdp@...> wrote:

Hi ,

Your questions are good questions! My guess would be that if you had migrating silicone that was not removed, that is the reason you have, or had, a secondary capsule, and the burning. Your body will try to wall off any migrating silicone to protect you from it, but there will be inflammation in that area where it is. Residual silicone in the body is not good, and there is an article in the files section about retained capsules that you might want to look at. I hate to burden you with these thoughts, but the truth is that scar tissue really, really should be removed, even if doctors tell you, "No big deal!". Unfortunately, they are wrong. Here is the study:

/files/Studies%20of%20Harm%20by%20Implanted%20Silicone/Complications%20related%20to%20Retained%20Implant%20Scar%20Capsules

: Plast Reconstr Surg 1995 Feb;95(2):364-71>>> Complications related to retained breast implant capsules.>> Hardt NS, Yu L, LaTorre G, Steinbach B>> Department of Pathology, University of Florida College of Medicine,> Gainesville.>> Citing evidence that breast implant-related capsules resolve uneventfully,> surgeons have elected to leave the capsules in place when implants are> removed because capsulectomy adds both morbidity and expense to the> procedure. However, recent clinical and histopathologic evidence suggests> that uneventful resolution is not always the case, and several potential> problems may arise from retained capsules after removal of the implant.> Retained implant capsules may result in a spiculated mass suspicious for> carcinoma, dense calcifications that obscure neighboring breast tissue on> subsequent imaging studies, and cystic masses due to persistent serous> effusion, expansile hematoma, or encapsulated silicone filled cysts.> Furthermore, retained capsules are a reservoir of implant-related foreign> material in the case of silicone gel-filled implants and textured implants> promoting tissue ingrowth. To avoid complications from retained capsules,> total capsulectomy or postoperative surveillance should be offered to> patients.>> PMID: 7824616, UI: 95125086

----- Original Message -----

From: Curry

Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 12:56 AM

Subject: Patty

Hi Patty, I want to thank you for your response and explanation to . I must be a true idiot because I never understood the purpose of capsules until I read your email. Even though I've heard it explained over and over again, it just didn't seem to register with me until now.

So, if I understand what you're saying, a secondary capsule to form in my right abdomen, tells me the silicone gel migrated and "pooled" in that area which caused another capsule to form? There was no doubt in my mind the silicone migrated, because the right capsule had ruptured, but without sounding too ignorant, I never understood why there was a secondary capsule. I also recently had a mammogram (which was very painful) and ultrasound, being told all the lumps and bumps in my chest were only scar tissue. No big deal! Yet I have burning in my chest 24/7 not including all the other health problems. Am I being lied to again? Is it the scar tissue that's causing all my burning? I feel so stupid asking these questions after all this time. Here I've been sharing my medical and health problems with others (based on my medical records), without really understanding what this all meant. You may find this hard to believe, but I use to be a fairly intelligent person at one time. Now I just try to appear to be. Anyway, thanks again for your explanation, as I'm sure does also. Love and Hugs............