A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

A Comparison of Textured versus Smooth-Surfaced Implants in Subfascial Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Subfascial placement of breast implants has the advantages of subglandular and submuscular placement without the adverse outcomes. This study examined the differences in outcomes between textured and smooth implants.

METHODS

A total of 385 patients underwent subfascial breast augmentation in 2 cohorts. The initial series ( n = 209) used textured implants and the second ( n = 176) used smooth implants. In all other respects, patient management was identical. Adverse outcomes, changes in breast morphometry, and patient satisfaction were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The follow-up period ranged from to 74 to 272 weeks for smooth implants (mean ± SD, 164 ± 50.6 weeks) and from 78 to 279 weeks for textured implants (mean ± SD, 186 ± 54 weeks). The incidence of capsular contracture was the same for smooth and textured implants (4.7% and 6.2%; P = 0.64). Changes in breast shape at the lower pole, patient satisfaction, and the incidence of other adverse outcomes were the same in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Subfascial placement of smooth and textured breast implants yielded similar outcomes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Influencing Factors of Breast Morphological Changes After Dual-Plane Augmentation with Smooth Round Implans: A Correlational Study

BACKGROUND

Breast morphology is the primary objective indicator for evaluating the outcome of augmentation surgery. Studies have indicated that breast morphology undergoes certain changes during the early postoperative period, which may result in a discrepancy between postoperative outcomes and preoperative design. This study utilized three-dimensional scanning technology and statistical methods to analyze the influencing factors of breast morphology changes, aiming to provide reference for implant selection and preoperative surgical planning.

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent endoscopic-assisted transaxillary dual-plane augmentation from July 2020 to June 2022. Anthropometry and three-dimensional scanning were performed on the enrolled patients, and the change values of postoperative breast morphological parameters were calculated. Spearman rank correlation tests were performed to assess the correlation between these changes and implant parameters as well as anthropometric measurements. Factors with high correlation were selected, and multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (60 breasts) were enrolled. The average downward displacement of the inframammary fold was 0.4 ± 0.3 cm, and the average outward displacement of the medial breast border was 0.2 ± 0.1 cm, both highly positively correlated with implant volume. The length of nipple-medial breast border increased by 0.5 ± 0.3 cm, highly positively correlated with the stretchability of the medial pole. The length of the nipple-to-inframammary fold increased by 0.6 ± 0.3 cm, highly positively correlated with implant volume and stretchability of the lower pole. Nipple displacement was 0.3 ± 0.2 cm outward, highly positively correlated with the stretchability of the medial pole. Nipple elevation was 0.2 ± 0.2 cm, highly positively correlated with implant volume and stretchability of the lower pole. Breast projection decreased by 0.4 ± 0.2 cm, highly positively correlated with preoperative breast projection. The average reduction in breast volume was 25.6 ± 15.7 cc, with the reduction value highly positively correlated with preoperative breast volume.

CONCLUSIONS

After smooth round implant augmentation mammoplasty, the breasts experienced slight downward and outward displacement, with the main influencing factor being the implant volume. Nipple displacement outward and upward, as well as lateral displacement, was primarily influenced by the stretchability of the medial pole. Upward displacement was mainly influenced by implant volume and the stretchability of the lower pole. The increase in length of the nipple-to-inframammary fold skin was most significantly influenced by implant volume and the stretchability of the lower pole. Breast convexity and volume gradually decreased, with preoperative breast size having the most significant impact on these changes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background  Biointegration of polyurethane (PU) implants providing their stable position years after surgery ensures predictable results of breast augmentation and reconstruction almost eliminating implant factor as a cause of complications. However, in rare cases PU implants appear to be not connected to the surrounding tissues. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PU implant nonadherence after primary breast augmentations and augmentation mastopexies with dual plane implant position, to analyze possible causes, and to propose preventive measures and treatment possibilities of this complication. Methods  The results of primary aesthetic surgeries in 333 patients with dual plane PU implant placement were analyzed. Patients were evaluated clinically, and pictures and videos taken in different periods after the surgery were compared. Particular attention was given to the changes in implant position and the appearance of asymmetries over time. Results  PU implant nonadherence was found in seven patients. It can be divided into primary and secondary and may be complete or partial. Primary nonadherence was found in two cases (0.6%), and secondary in five (1.5%) cases. Possible influencing factors could have been traumatic surgical technique, seroma, hematoma, or physical trauma. The average follow-up was 33 months (1 month-15 years). Conclusion  Biointegration is mandatory for the long-term predictable results with PU implants. PU implant nonadherence leads to implant malposition and may cause typical complications connected to non-PU implants. Improvements in surgical maneuvers, manufacturing process, and weight reduction of the implant may be beneficial for the stability of the results. Level of Evidence  V.

Practice Patterns in Primary Breast Augmentation: A 16-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

As part of the continuous certification process, the American Board of Plastic Surgery collects case data for specific tracer procedures in aesthetic surgery to assess practice improvement by the diplomates. These case-based data provide valuable information on national trends in clinical practice. The current study was performed to analyze practice patterns in aesthetic primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

Breast augmentation tracer data were reviewed from 2005 to 2021 and grouped into an early cohort (EC), from 2005 through 2014, and a recent cohort (RC), from 2015 through 2021. Fisher exact tests and two-sample t tests compared demographic characteristics of the patients, surgical techniques, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Patients in the RC were slightly older (34 versus 35 years; P < 0.001), more likely to have ptosis greater than 22 cm (20% versus 23%; P < 0.0001), less likely to smoke (12% versus 8%; P < 0.0001), and less likely to undergo a preoperative mammogram (29% versus 24%; P < 0.0001). From a technical standpoint, inframammary incisions have become more common (68% versus 80%; P < 0.0001), whereas periareolar incision use has decreased (24% versus 14%; P < 0.0001). Submuscular plane placement has increased (22% versus 56%; P < 0.0001), while subglandular placement has decreased (19% versus 7%; P < 0.0001). Silicone implants are most popular (58% versus 82%; P < 0.0001). Textured implant use increased from 2011 (2%) to 2016 (16%), followed by a sharp decline to 0% by 2021. Trends follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals and warnings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights evolving trends in aesthetic breast augmentation over the past 16 years. The most common technique remains a smooth silicone prosthesis placed in the subpectoral plane through an inframammary incision.

The Position of the Nipple-Areola Complex in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

There is some controversy regarding whether the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is elevated, remains stable, or is lowered in breast augmentation. There is a general belief that one can modulate its position depending on the implant chosen. In addition, many preoperative markings include elevating the arms to predict the final position of the NAC.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate changes in the position of the NAC and determine whether the postoperative position of the NAC can be predicted preoperatively by elevating the arms.

METHODS

The study included 45 patients. A 3-dimensional scan was performed to take basal (preoperative) and 12-month measurements with the patient's arms in abduction and elevated over the head. The distances measured were the sternal notch-nipple (SN-Ni), nipple-nipple (Ni-Ni), and nipple-inframammary fold (Ni-IMF) distances.

RESULTS

With arms abducted, the SN-Ni distance increased by 6% when measured linearly, 8.5% when measured on the skin surface, and 1% to 2% when measured on the sternal line. The Ni-Ni distance increased by 9% (linear) and 15% (over the surface). The Ni-IMF increased by 44%. With arms adducted, the SN-Ni distance increased by 9% (linear), 12% (on the skin surface), and 0.5% at the sternal midline projection. The Ni-Ni distance increased 11% (linear) and 19% (on the surface). The Ni-IMF distance increased by 53%. The postoperative position of the NAC with the arms abducted increased by 17% compared with the preoperative position in adduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants do not elevate the NAC; its position remains nearly unaltered. The SN-Ni distance was increased in 90% of the patients. Lifting the arms for preoperative markings does not help to predict the postoperative position of the NAC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Initial Assessment of VECTRA Three-Dimensional Imaging to Accurately Simulate Breast Volume Changes in Transfeminine Patients: A Mannequin Study

BACKGROUND

Methods that aim to accurately measure and predict breast development can be utilized in gender-affirming treatment planning, patient education, and research.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate whether three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry accurately measures transfeminine breast volume changes on a masculine frame when simulating anticipated changes in soft tissue after gender-affirming surgical therapy. Then, we describe the innovative application of this imaging modality in a transgender patient to illustrate the potential role of 3D imaging in gender-affirming surgical care.

METHODS

A 3D VECTRA scanner (Canfield, Fairfield, NJ) was used to measure anthropometric breast measurements. Postoperative changes in breast volume were simulated on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation mannequin using 450 cc MENTOR breast implants (Mentor Worldwide LLC, Irvine, CA). To demonstrate the ability of the VECTRA to accurately simulate transfeminizing augmentation in practice, we describe its use in a 30-year-old transgender female with a 2-year history of gender-affirming hormone therapy, presenting for gender-affirming surgical care.

RESULTS

In the mannequin, mean breast volumes were 382 cc on the right (range 375-388 cc), and 360 cc on the left (range 351-366 cc). The average calculated difference in volume between the 2 sides was 22 cc (range 17-31 cc). There were no instances where the left side was calculated to be larger than the right or where the calculated size was smaller than the actual implant size.

CONCLUSIONS

The VECTRA 3D camera is a reliable and reproducible tool for preoperative assessment, surgical planning, and simulating breast volume changes after gender-affirming surgery.

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

The choice of implant shape (anatomic or round) is one of the most critical issues for breast augmentation. Determining whether there are differences in the postoperative breast morphology of the 2 implants is pivotal for surgical planning. This issue has been controversial and lacking in evidence. The aim of this study was to provide reference for implant selection by comparing breast morphology after dual-plane augmentation with anatomic and round implants using 3-dimensional scanning technology.

METHODS

Patients with implant volume less than 300 mL who underwent transaxillary dual-plane augmentation were included in this study and were grouped according to implant shape. Three-dimensional scans were performed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative breast height (BH), breast width (BW), BH of upper pole (BHUP), BH of lower pole (BHLP), breast projection (BP), BP of upper pole (BPUP), and BP of lower pole (BPLP) were measured separately, resulting in corresponding ratios (BH/BW, BHUP/BHLP, BP/BH, BPUP/BPLP). Breast volume, and the volumes of each pole (breast volume of upper pole [BVUP], breast volume of lower pole [BVLP]) and its ratio (BVUP/BVLP) were calculated. Correlation and regression analysis on the influencing factors of breast volume were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with anatomic implants and 26 with round implants were enrolled in this study. The mean volumes of anatomic and round implants were 260.5 ± 26.7 and 267.9 ± 21.7 mL (P = 0.192). The ratios of BH/BW in the 2 groups were 1.39 ± 0.12 and 1.37 ± 0.19, respectively (P = 0.582). The BHUP/BHLP values of 2 groups were 1.35 ± 0.22 and 1.41 ± 0.25 (P = 0.160). Two sets of BPUP/BPLP were 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.73 ± 0.17 (P = 0.133). The ratios of BP/BH in the 2 groups were 0.39 ± 0.08 and 0.39 ± 0.06 (P = 0.830). The BVUP/BVLP ratios for both groups were 0.75 ± 0.11 and 0.77 ± 0.12 (P = 0.287). There was a volume loss rate of 13.3% ± 3.9% and 13.9% ± 5% (P = 0.489). The postoperative volume showed a positive correlation with both the preoperative volume and the implant volume.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with breast dysplasia undergoing transaxillary dual-plane augmentation with anatomic or round implants less than 300 mL, the difference in postoperative breast morphology is not obvious. Using these 2 shapes of implants results in a similar degree of volume loss.

Breast Morphological Changes after Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation with Smooth Round Implants: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most performed cosmetic surgery in the world. Although smooth round implants are widely used, the trend in breast morphology change after dual-plane augmentation with such implants remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed the issue with the support of 3D scanning technology, which may help provide an objective basis for the evaluation of postoperative outcomes and the determination of follow-up time points.

METHODS

Patients undergoing dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants were prospectively included in this study. The variation trend of postoperative breast morphology was analyzed by measuring the specified linear distance, body surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume at different follow-up time points (1st month, post-1M; 3rd month, post-3M; 6th month, post-6M; 12th month, post-12M).

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients were included in this study. During the postoperative follow-up period, breast height prolonged while interval of the medial border gradually widened. Breast width was maintained without significant alterations from post-1M. The N-MBB lengthened with shortening of the N-LBB, meanwhile the N-IMF was prolonged by 0.6 cm. Breast volume was gradually reduced with the decrease in breast projection. The position of the nipple gradually shifted laterally, superiorly, and posteriorly after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between the linear distance at post-3M and post-12M, while the surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume tended to be stable at post-6M.

CONCLUSIONS

After dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants, the base contour of the breast shifted outwards and downwards, and stabilized after 3 months. The remaining breast morphological parameters reached a relative steady state by post-6M, which could be regarded as the time point for objective evaluation of postoperative effect.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Breast Reconstruction- Developing a Volumetric Outcome Algorithm

Postoperative loss of breast volume represents a significant parameter for outcome evaluation of breast reconstruction. Breast volume broadly varies- depending of reconstruction method as well as surgical differences. A structural pattern of breast volume loss provides an essential parameter for preoperative design, helps to reduce postoperative breast asymmetry rate and thereby the need for reoperation. Therefore we hereby compare volume change of the three main reconstruction techniques: autologous flap-based, prosthesis-based and autologous fat transplantation breast reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

An Analysis of Ptosis following Subfascial Breast Augmentation: Calculations That Explain Dogma

BACKGROUND

Implant placement can improve ptosis due to the position of the nipple, inframammary crease, and base of the breast acting together. The interrelationship between these was quantified via changes in morphometry following subfascial augmentation, and explains the circumstances under which dogma holds true.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-five patients underwent a series of static measurements before and 3 months after subfascial breast augmentation. Ptosis in the nipple and base of the breast was calculated before and after surgery.

RESULTS

All measurements except that of the the lateral sternal margin increased after surgery. All grades of ptosis reduced following surgery. There was lowering of the base in grade 1 patients, but not for other grades. Increased base ptosis correlated with reduced lateral sternal margin (1.9 cm compared with 2.9 cm; left, H5 = 24.7, p < 0.01; right, H5 = 24.5, p < 0.01). Implant volume did not correlate with change in ptosis at the nipple or base. Reduced ptosis was associated with implants that are a narrow match of implant to breast (0.52 to 0.95) (left, H5 = 28.3, p < 0.01; right, H5 = 24.9, p < 0.01). Decreasing ptosis correlated with lower lateral sternal margin compared to breasts that increased ptosis. Change in ptosis following surgery does not correlate with having children.

CONCLUSIONS

Subfascial placement has varying effects on ptosis. Non-ptotic or mildly ptotic breasts appear to improve due to a disproportionate descent of the inframammary crease relative to the nipple and base. Patients with little breast tissue are more susceptible to an increase in "bottoming out," particularly if broad implants are used. A ratio matching implant to the base width has predictive value on outcome.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Quantitative Analysis of Nipple to Inframammary Fold Distance Variation in Tuberous Breast Augmentation: Is there a Progressive Lower Pole Expansion?

INTRODUCTION

In patients with short nipple to inframammary fold (N-IMF) distance, as in tuberous breast, the cohesivity and gel distribution of shaped implants work as a controlled tissue expander, progressively adapting the tissues to the implant's shape. This phenomenon translates into a gradual increase of the N-IMF distance over time, but the true extent to which this occurs has not been quantified to date. This study aims to quantify the postoperative variation of the N-IMF distance in tuberous breast treated with shaped cohesive silicone breast implants.

METHODS

We did a retrospective review of a prospective maintained database of all consecutive patients with bilateral Groulleau I and II tuberous breasts who underwent primary breast augmentation between April 2017 and May 2018 at our institution. To quantify the lower mammary pole's morphological changes, we evaluated the N-IMF distance under maximal stretch as an endpoint. We recorded this value at time 0 (preoperative), immediate post-op (equivalent to the distance planned preoperatively) and at month 1, month 6 and 1-year post-op. Then we calculated the average N-IMF distance variation of our sample of patients with a 99% interval of confidence for each breast obtained. Comparisons were performed using the Sign test and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The average implant weight was 353g (range 290-450; SD ±46.147). Of the 54 breasts analyzed, the immediate post-op N-IMF distance was on average 2.43 cm longer than the preop IMF with a 99% confidence interval between 2.01 and 2.86 and SD of ±1.22. The mean difference between the preop N-IMF distance and after 1, 6 and 12 months was respectively 2.78 cm (SD,1.56) (99% CI, 2.24-3.34), 3.08 cm (SD, 1.57) (99% CI, 2.53-3.64), and 3.36 (1.55) (99% CI, 2.82-3.91) Comparing immediate postoperative nipple to inframammary fold distance (N-IMF) to the 1, 6 and 12 months N-IMF values, an average of 4.23% (CI 1.3-7.16), 7.74% (CI 4.25-11.23) and 10.84% (CI 7.21-14.49) of skin length, was gained respectively. According to implants' weight, subgroup analysis showed that implants > 400 g were associated with significantly higher N-IMF distance increase (p <0.05) compared to implants < 400 g.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a significant progressive postoperative increase in N-IMF distance should be expected in all cases of tuberous breast augmentation with anatomical implants over a 1 year period. This aspect may have an important implication on the IMF incision and the new fold position preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV.

Internal Mastopexy: A Novel Method of Filling the Upper Poles During Dual-Plane Breast Augmentation Trough Periareolar Incision

BACKGROUND

Breast ptosis is a deformity commonly found in patients seeking breast augmentation. Current mastopexy techniques rely on incisions on the breast to correct ptosis; nonetheless, they leave extensive scars. Having to opt for a visibly scarred breast over a ptotic breast can be a difficult choice.

OBJECTIVES

We sought an innovative internal suture mastopexy for hypomastia of mild breast ptosis.

METHODS

A procedure that left a tiny scar on the nipple-areolar complex was introduced. This method was safe and efficient when combining mastopexy with augmentation.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 patients underwent this operation in the Plastic and Cosmetic Department of Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017, with a mean follow-up of 38 ± 16 months. The pre-operation and post-operation SN-N lines (the distance from the sternal notch to the nipple) were 21.8 ± 1.2 cm and 20.7 ± 1.0 cm, respectively; the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The patients and surgeon expressed satisfaction with the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the present study, which included more than 50 patients, we believe that internal suture mastopexy can be used as an effective alternative hypomastia in patients with mild breast ptosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266. .