Contact info for Dr. Blais

[Guest guest]

--- colibrimama <colibrimama@...> wrote:

>

> From: " colibrimama " <colibrimama@...>

> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:21:36 -0000

> Subject: Re: need contact info for

> Dr. Blais

>

>

> Here is an important article by Dr. Blais as well as

> his contact

> information. May God bless and protect this brave

> scientist.

>

> Ilena Rosenthal

> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

>

> Residual Capsule and Intercapsular Debris As Long

> Term Risk Factors.

>

>

>

> Contamination of the space between the capsule and

> the implants by

> micro- organisms, silicone oils, degradation

> products and gel

> impurities constitutes a major problem which

> potentiates the risk of

> implants. Such problems include inflammation,

> infection, deposition

> of mineral debris, as well as certain auto-immune

> phenomena. These

> problems can be present when implants are in situ

> (in the body) and

> are often attributable to the implant. The logical

> expectation is

> that, upon removal of the implants, adverse effects

> will cease. This

> is an unjustifiably optimistic view. It is well

> documented from case

> histories that removal and or replacement of

> implants without

> exhaustive debridement of the prosthetic site leads

> to failure and

> post surgical complications.

>

> Plastic surgery procedures tend to favor speed and

> immediate

> cosmetic results. For these reasons, leaving or

> " reusing " tissue

> from an existing capsule may seem more " gratifying "

> However, adverse

> effects resulting from the practice are widespread

> but have not been

> well documented. Typically, patients who require

> removal of faulty

> implants and undergo immediate re-implantation in

> the same

> prosthetic site habitually relapse with the same

> problem which

> motivated the previous surgery; the most common

> example is exchange

> of implants and/or sectorizing or bisecting the

> capsule without

> removing it completely.

>

> Such patients rarely achieve a significant capsular

> correction and

> habitually return for more similar surgery. A more

> illustrative

> situation is that where patients do not receive

> replacement

> implants. They form the basis of knowledge for

> evaluating the risks

> that arise from remaining capsules. An example is

> described in a

> paper published in 1993 (Copeland, M., Kessel, A.,

> Spiera, H.,

> Hermann, G., Bleiweiss, I. J.; Systemic Inflammatory

> Disorder

> Related To Fibrous Breast Capsules After Silicone

> Implant Removal;

> Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: 92 (6),

> 1179-1181, 1993):

> reported problems derived primarily from immune

> phenomena and

> inflammatory syndromes with pain, swelling,

> serologic abnormaladies

> and alarming radiologic presentation.

>

> Numerous similar cases have been noted amongst

> implant patients but

> have not been theobject of publications. Some are

> cited in FDA

> Reaction Reports. Others appear in theU.S.

> Pharmacopoeia Reporting

> Programs.

>

> A residual capsule is not a stable entity. It may

> collapse upon

> completion of surgery and remain asymptomatic for

> some time,

> however, it will fill with extracellular fluid and

> remain as a fluid-

> filled space with added blood and prosthetic debris.

> As the wall

> matures and the breast remodels to accommodate the

> loss of the

> prostheses, the capsular tissue shrinks. Water as

> well as

> electrolytes are expelled gradually from the pocket

> or else the

> mixture is concentrated from leakage of water from

> the semi-

> permeable capsular membrane wall.

>

> In most cases, calcium salts precipitate during that

> stage and may

> render the capsule visible as a radiodense and

> speckled zone in

> radiographic projections. Prosthetic debris is also

> radiodense and

> may be imaged to further complicate the

> presentation. The average

> size of the residual capsules after 6-12 months is

> in the 2-7 cm

> range: most are compact, comparatively small and

> dense. Surgical

> removal should present no difficulty for most

> patients if adequate

> radiographic information is available.

>

> Later stages of maturation include the thickening of

> the capsule

> wall, sometimes reaching 0.5-1cm. Compression of the

> debris into a

> cluster of nodules which actually become calcified

> follows for some

> patients. A few mimic malignancies. Others appear as

>

> small " prostheses " during mammographic studies. They

> are alarming to

> onocologists and are habitually signalled for

> further studies or

> biopsies by oncologic radiologists.

>

> In light of the present knowledge and considering

> the probable

> content of the residual closed capsules, an open or

> needle biopsy is

> not advisable. The risks of releasing significant

> amounts of

> hazardous contamination and possibly spreading

> infective entities

> outweighs the advantage of the diagnostic. At any

> rate, such a

> capsule requires removal for mitigation of symptoms

> and a more

> direct surgical approach appears more economical and

> less risky.

>

> In summary, a capsule with a dense fibro-collagenous

> wall behaves as

> a bioreactor. Worse yet, it is fitted with a

> semi-permeable wall

> that may periodically open to release its content to

> the breast. The

> probability of finding the space colonized with

> atypical micro-

> organisms is elevated and the control of infective

> processes by

> classic pharmacologic approaches is difficult if not

> impossible.

>

> Such closed capsular spaces may be comparable to

> " artificial organs "

> of unpredictable functions. Their behavior will

> depend on the

> content and the age of the structure, its maturity

> and the history

> of the patient. There is a high probability that

> these capsules will

> continue to evolve for many years, adding more

> layers of fibro-

> collagenous tissue and possibly granulomatous

> material. If bacterial

> entities are present within the capsule space, they

> can culminate in

> large breast abscesses with will resist conservative

> treatments.

>

> Even with less active capsules containing mostly

> oily and calcitic

> debris, the thickening of the wall leads eventually

> to solid " tumor-

> like structures " and are, by themselves, alarming on

> auscultation

> and self examination. At best, such structures are

> unique

> environments for protein denaturation and aberrant

> biochemical

> reactions with unknown long term consequences.

>

> Pierre Blais, Ph.D.

>

> Innoval 496 Westminster Ave.

>

> Ottawa, Ontario

>

> Canada KeA 2V1

>

> Phone: (613) 728-8688

>

> Fax: (613) 728-0687

>

> Pierre Blais, PhD received his undergraduate and

> graduate degrees in

> physical-organic polymer chemistry from McGill

> University in

> Montreal, Canada, and a Post-doctorate Fellowship in

> biomaterials

> engineering at Case Western University in Cleveland,

> Ohio. In 1976

> he became one of the first scientists to join the

> medical devices

> and radiological health program of the Department of

> Health and

> Welfare in Canada. He left the department in 1989 as

> Senior

> Scientific Advisor and formed Innoval Consultants, a

> firm engaged in

> the design, testing and failure analysis of high

> risk medical

> systems. He has authored over 250 publications on

> medical materials

> and their interactions with living tissues.

>

>

>

>

> >

> > Could someone give me the contact info for Dr.

> Blais? Did you use

> > his lab for your pathology report? Could a

> pathologist at the

> > hospital where I explant do a similar report? How

> expensive is Dr.

> > Blais? Need feedback please....J

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Patty,

Thank you for posting Dr. Blais contact info, even though I'm sure I

could've gotten it from somewhere else, such as the law firm in NY

that's handling my Dow claim. I know they're waiting for a report

from him right now so they can submit my Dow claim and my situation

is complicated so it's taking a little longer. That's ok though

because I'm hoping I'll be able to find a rheumatologist, in the

meantime, to write up an " expert report " showing I'm more than 20%

disabled from implants. I'm on SS Disability, with fibromyalgia,

but Dow doesn't take that into consideration because they won't

admit the disability is caused by implants. If I can get a rheumy

to do the expert report showing at least 40% disability due to the

implants, I can get more from Dow. Anyway, besides all that, I've

been wanting to talk to Dr. Blais because he's probably seen my name

and my file from this particular law firm, off and on, for many

years. I've had just about every type of implants ever made and

he's the one who's had to decipher my medical records. I'm very

curious to know what he thinks about certain questions I have. The

most recent thing to come to mind is this: the silicone implant I

had taken out in April of this year, which I'd had for probably 15

years, was 350cc when taken out....I want to know if he has any of

my records that show the size of it when it was put in. It wasn't

ruptured but if it was bigger when put in than when taken out,

doesn't it make sense that it leaked through the membrane, over

time?? Also, the PS who replaced it with a saline implant, against

my better judgment, put in an implant that is 520cc!! It's huge,

heavy, and I hate it!! I know it's bigger than the one he took out

but he claims it was necessary to make me as close as possible

symmetrically. If that's true, then I really want to know what size

the silicone one was when it was put in. The girl at the law firm

agreed with me that it just might prove a leak through the membrane

if the size went down, even without a rupture. I'll let you know

what I find out and I'm hoping I'll get a chance to talk to Dr.

Blais about this personally. Thanks again everybody. Dianne