Little has been published regarding the treatment of patients with long-established capsular contracture after previous submuscular or subglandular breast augmentation. This study reviews 7 years of experience in treating established capsular contracture after augmentation mammaplasty by relocating implants to the "dual-plane" or partly subpectoral position. A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who were treated for capsular contracture using this technique between 1993 and 1999. Data collected included the date of the original augmentation, the original implant location, date of revision and type of implant used, length of follow-up, outcome, and any ensuing complications. Different surgical techniques were used, depending on whether the prior implant was located in a subglandular or submuscular plane. All patients had revisions such that their implants were relocated to a dual plane, with the superior two thirds or so of the implant located beneath the pectoralis major muscle and the inferior one third located subglandularly. Of 85 patients reviewed, 54 had their original implants in a submuscular position and 31 had their initial augmentation in a subglandular position. Of the 54 patients whose implants were initially submuscular, 23 patients (43 percent) had silicone gel implants, 15 patients (28 percent) had double-lumen implants, and the remaining 16 patients (30 percent) had saline implants. Of the 31 patients whose implants were initially subglandular, 20 patients (65 percent) had silicone gel implants, three patients (10 percent) had double-lumen implants, and the remaining eight patients (26 percent) had saline implants. Fifty-one patients (60 percent) had replacement with saline implants (37 smooth saline, 14 textured saline), whereas 34 (40 percent) had silicone gel implants (seven smooth gel, 27 textured gel). The average time from previous augmentation to revision was 9 years 9 months. The average follow-up time after conversion to the dual-plane position was 11.5 months. Only three of 85 patients required reoperation for complications, all of which involved some degree of implant malposition. Of patients converted to the dual plane, 98 percent were free of capsular contracture and were Baker class I at follow-up, whereas 2 percent were judged as Baker class II. There were no Baker level III or IV contractures at follow-up. The dual-plane method of breast augmentation has proved to be an effective technique for correcting established capsular contracture after previous augmentation mammaplasty. This technique appears to be effective when performed with either silicone or saline-filled implants.

Prophylactic mastectomy continues to be a controversial procedure as a preventive tool against breast cancer. Recent research and other scientific advances, however, have refocused attention on better risk estimation, evidence of efficacy, and improvements in reconstruction. The recently discovered genetic markers BRCA1 and BRCA2 have become increasingly important in determining risk; a BRCA1-positive patient's risk of developing breast cancer by the age of 65 is estimated at 50 percent to 80 percent. BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive breast cancers also tend to be higher grade and occur in younger women (making mammography less effective). Genetically linked breast cancers are usually estrogen receptor negative, making them less susceptible to chemoprevention. Various predictive models and recommendations by experts in the field are also available for today's clinicians to ascertain who should be genetically tested. The benefit of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, although difficult to estimate, can be evaluated by looking at the incidence of breast cancer in studies of patients who have previously undergone prophylactic mastectomy. The estimated risk reduction from these studies is 80 percent to 95 percent. Similarly, life expectancy is believed to be increased from 2.9 to 5.3 years. The psychological benefits include a 70 percent rate of satisfaction and a decrease in emotional concern over developing breast cancer by 74 percent of women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy. Although reconstruction results may vary, most patients have been very satisfied and some may achieve cosmetic results that are better than their preoperative situation. Patient selection for specific types of reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy and the decision to proceed should be based on surgical risk and the likelihood of a good outcome. The choice of mastectomy incision should consider the size of the breast, preexisting scars, patient risk factors, and the planned method and goal of reconstruction. The authors propose certain guidelines based on degree of ptosis and cup size when planning prophylactic mastectomies with reconstruction. In certain cases, a nipple-sparing mastectomy may provide cosmetic advantages that could outweigh the additional oncologic risk.