Shamed Scottish breast surgeon disputes claims of exaggerated ‘cleavage-sparing mastectomies’ figures
Former breast surgeon Ian Paterson has refuted the number of “cleavage-sparing mastectomies” attributed to him as being inflated, stating that it was not a separate procedure but rather an adaptation. Testifying via video link from prison during an inquest for one of his patients, Paterson explained that he ceased performing this form of mastectomy in 2007 after being advised by hospital authorities that further research was necessary. The cleavage-sparing mastectomy, which Paterson clarified he did not coin the term for, involved leaving behind breast tissue for cosmetic purposes to create the appearance of a fuller bust, but allegedly increased the risk of cancer recurrence – a claim he denied.
Currently serving a 20-year jail term for harming 10 patients, Paterson iterated to the court his belief that the procedure he carried out was not a distinct operation but a modification of a traditional mastectomy to retain more subcutaneous fatty tissue. He argued against the need for specific patient consent, contending that it did not differ significantly from a standard mastectomy. Paterson expressed surprise at the purported number of cleavage-sparing mastectomies in his practice, noting that he did not maintain records as he did not consider it a separate procedure. Refuting allegations of deliberate negligence, he maintained that the surgeries were oncologically safe and underscored his commitment to patient well-being.
Paterson asserted that his intention was to provide a better cosmetic outcome for certain cancer patients, particularly those with larger breasts, by leaving subcutaneous fat strategically away from the cancer site to create a cleavage-like appearance. He emphasised that upon learning of concerns related to his practice, he promptly halted the adaptations as per hospital directives and stressed his readiness to cease any activity that could pose harm. When questioned about the necessity of informing patients of the variation from a standard mastectomy, Paterson emphasised the importance of ensuring the removal of cancer while striving to enhance the patient’s cosmesis.
Addressing the issue of patient safety, Paterson maintained that his procedures aimed to eliminate all visible breast tissue and were deemed safe oncologically. Despite the controversies surrounding his methods, he denied any deliberate retention of breast tissue and stressed his compliance with medical standards. The disgraced surgeon is scheduled to provide further evidence in subsequent inquests into the deaths of past patients, with the complexity and ethical implications of his practices likely to be scrutinised.
Summarizing some of Paterson’s statements, he defended his approach to mastectomies as enhancing cosmesis while maintaining the patients’ well-being. Despite the controversies, he emphasised his commitment to the safety and care of his patients, asserting that any concerns raised led to immediate cessation of the contentious procedures. The ongoing inquests are expected to shed more light on the nuances of his practices and the impact on patient outcomes.