Experience and technical refinements in the "donut" mastopexy with augmentation mammaplasty

Breast Lift with and without Implant: A Synopsis and Primer for the Plastic Surgeon

Breast ptosis is a common occurrence following weight loss, pregnancy, and breastfeeding, or as a consequence of normal aging. This results in loss of a youthful shape and contour of the breast, with a change in the position of the nipple–areolar complex. Mastopexy can restore this youthful appearance and transpose the nipple–areolar complex to a more aesthetic position on the breast. Various techniques exist that address the skin and parenchyma of the breast and are chosen based on the degree of ptosis and skin laxity, as well as the patient’s goals. These techniques all differ in scar burden and risk profile. Additionally, this can be done simultaneously or in a staged manner. In this literature review, we aim to provide an overview of mastopexy procedures, with and without augmentation. Further, we aim to detail recent advancements in technical approaches, and delineate common complications in certain patient demographics. To this end, we performed a literature search with a medical librarian, using PubMed/Medline to identify pertinent literature. In the context of the review, we discuss important considerations in patient selection and counseling to set expectations and ultimately, optimize surgical outcome and patient satisfaction.

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

Background

Numerous augmentation/mastopexy methods have been described in the literature, including those reported in 16 publications in 2019. However, objective measurements of breast dimensions are lacking, leaving little information on which to base treatment selection. The goal is to increase upper pole projection using an implant and correct ptosis by elevating the lower pole with the mastopexy.

Methods

A PubMed search was conducted to identify published augmentation/mastopexy methods. Lateral photographs were matched for size and orientation and then compared using a 2-dimensional measurement system. Measurements were compared for 5 common approaches-vertical; periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; inverted-T, superior pedicle; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle. Four publications not fitting these 5 groups were also evaluated. Measurement parameters included breast projection, upper pole projection, lower pole level, breast mound elevation, nipple level, area, and breast parenchymal ratio.

Results

A total of 106 publications were identified; 32 publications included lateral photographs suitable for comparison. Twenty-eight publications fitting 1 of the 5 groups were compared. All published augmentation/mastopexy methods increased breast projection and upper pole projection, although not significantly for inverted-T methods. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy was the only method that significantly raised the lower pole level (P < 0.05). The vertical technique also significantly (P < 0.01) increased the breast parenchymal ratio. Periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle methods produced nonsignificant increments in the breast parenchymal ratio.

Conclusions

Breast implants increase breast projection and upper pole projection. Only vertical augmentation/mastopexy significantly elevates the lower pole. This method also significantly increases the breast parenchymal ratio, achieving the surgical objectives.

Periareolar Augmentation-Mastopexy

The authors describe their surgical technique for single-stage periareolar mastopexy with subglandular breast augmentation. They have performed this procedure in 85 patients since 2009 and found that this operative technique has allowed them to achieve reproducible outcomes in a single-stage procedure. Periareolar mastopexy with subglandular breast augmentation is an excellent procedure for patients who desire a larger breast size and who present with mild to moderate nipple ptosis with a paucity of excess skin in the lower pole of the breast. This article will review the perioperative management and detailed steps of the procedure and outline its indications for utilization and some of the common complications the authors have encountered.

Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket

BACKGROUND

Augmentation with mastopexy is a commonly performed procedure and is done either simultaneously or in stages. The augmentation component can be accomplished by placing an implant in the subglandular, partial submuscular, or subfascial plane, and mastopexy can be performed using periareolar, vertical, or Wise pattern markings. These two components are independent of each other and any pocket can be combined with suitable external markings. The muscle-splitting submuscular biplane is a new pocket and is combined with conventional envelope reductions for mastopexy.

METHODS

The submuscular biplane pocket was used in 44 consecutive patients for mastopexy and augmentation using vertical scar and periareolar markings. Of these, 13 had subglandular augmentation in the past. The mean age of the patients was 32.4 years (range = 21-46). Average blood loss was 44 g (range = 10-111 g). Drains were used selectively and the procedure was usually done as a day case.

RESULTS

The follow-up period of the included cases ranged from 4 months to 3 years. No infection, hematoma, or wound problems were seen. Minor revision was required for periareolar puckering in one case and three had dog-ears after vertical scar mastopexy. One periareolar mastopexy required conversion into a vertical scar as a revision and one vertical scar mastopexy had superficial infection with bilateral minor skin breakdown which responded completely to antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

The submuscular biplane technique is a good option for breast augmentation with mastopexy as a single or staged procedure.

Extended crescent mastopexy with augmentation

Problems with periareola or circumareolar mastopexy procedures include areola spreading, hypertrophic scar, and recurrence of the ptosis largely because of tension on the closure. To minimize this tension associated with a conventional crescent mastopexy procedure, the authors modified the operation by excising parenchyma with the crescent of skin as well as two small triangles of parenchyma on either side of the areola. Implant augmentation was performed at the same time. The described operation is indicated for patients who have a small to moderate amount of ptosis. The best candidate is the patient whose areola-inframammary distance is not excessive. Nine such patients received this "extended crescent mastopexy with augmentation" and were followed for up to 3 years. Areola spreading and hypertrophic scar were kept to a minimum. Although not the final answer for ptosis patients, the extended crescent mastopexy with augmentation has been a step in the right direction.

[The use of implants in ptosis, hypertrophic and breast deformities]

Breast precise analysis, due to a partial or global diformity, total or minor tuberous breast allows an interesting appreciation of the skin and gland importance in breast modifications. This same analysis enables us to consider the ptosis and hypertrophies under a different angle. Thus, the relative proportions in between the various segments, their evolution in the time and especially the glandular distribution mode, sometimes leads to a different technical approach. To ensure a better glandular distribution, an important factor of the breast stability, the use of a mastopexy, which everyone knows the limits, appears under a new light and, more often than one thought, the use of a breast implant ensures homogeneity of consistency and a more long term result. Concerning the various skin modifications, their specific analysis permit to establish the type of incision used for a better-adapted scar result. The approach we suggest, (detailed analytic study of the breast, glandular distribution, relative proportion of the different breast levels and a more frequent use of an implant) which in any case should not be systematic, can obviously in certain situation optimize the quality of the result (long term projection and a better stability of the mammary shape).

Radial plication in concentric mastopexy

Concentric mastopexy presents many challenges to the plastic surgeon, especially when breast augmentation is part of the treatment plan. Radial plication is a reproducible and accurate technique for elevating the nipple-areolar complex and shaping the breast mound. Patient selection is important to the success of the radial plication procedure and concentric mastopexy in general. Although most surgeons agree that patients with smaller degrees of nipple ptosis and smaller breasts have better results than patients with greater degrees of nipple ptosis and larger breasts, there has never been an algorithm for patient selection. Regnault's classification of breast ptosis addresses the degree of nipple ptosis, but no consideration is given to breast volume. Radial placation proved to be a valuable tool in the treatment of 87 patients undergoing concentric mastopexy in the author's practice over the past 30 months. An algorithm addressing degrees of breast ptosis and breast volume is provided. The plastic surgeon can anticipate gratifying results if the algorithm provided is incorporated into his or her patient selection for concentric mastopexy. The concentric mastopexy technique is similar to the tailor tack procedure for standard mastopexy, allowing the plastic surgeon to mold and shape the breast before making a critical incision.