Transaxillary muscle-splitting breast augmentation, a novel approach to a technique that has been described previously, provides consistent, satisfactory results and good reproducibility. This new approach provides an excellent anatomic final appearance with no risk of displacement, rippling, double-bubble deformity, or contracture-associated deformities. Furthermore, this technique avoids any visible scars on the breast and features a low complication rate.

No abstract

Background Breast augmentation is frequently performed together with abdominoplasty. Although breast augmentation incisions generally heal well, patients almost universally will appreciate having fewer scars; this is the basic rationale for transabdominal breast augmentation. In addition, a transabdominal approach may decrease the risk of implant contamination because there is no contact of the implants with skin. Methods A chart review of the senior author's private practice, from 2012 to 2020, was performed; 68 female patients who underwent abdominoplasty in association with transabdominal breast augmentation, with at least 1 year of follow-up, were included. All patients underwent liposuction, standard abdominoplasty with wide suprafascial abdominal flap undermining, and liposuction of the abdominal flap as needed. Round, silicone gel implants (Mentor Siltex, Santa Monica, CA) were used. Results A total of 68 patients were operated on. Mean age was 49 years (range, 25–68 years), mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m2 (range, 22.3–29.5 kg/m2). The most commonly used implant volume (mode) was 270 mL (range, 225–395 mL). Implants were high (75%) or ultrahigh profile (25%). Eight patients (15%) had previously undergone breast augmentation. Seven patients (12%) underwent simultaneous breast fat grafting. There were no major complications. There were no complications related to the breast augmentation (ie, no extrusion or infection, malposition requiring revision, or capsular contracture). No patients requested upsizing or other revision of their implants. With regard to the abdominoplasty, there were 4 cases of well-circumscribed seroma treated with serial aspiration in the office. There were no cases of abdominoplasty site infection. Five patients required revision of abdominoplasty incisions. Two patients requested revision liposuction after weight gain. Conclusions Breast augmentation through an abdominoplasty incision may incur benefits beyond the obvious single surgical scar. Overall, transabdominal breast augmentation, in adequately selected patients, is an option which is safe, does not increase operative time, can lead to good results, and may potentially decrease some complications related to breast augmentation through other incision sites.

Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy can achieve excellent patient and surgeon satisfaction but continues to pose a challenge, with revision rates of up to 25%. Recurrent ptosis and poor overall breast shape are 2 common reasons for reoperation, whereas some of the most feared complications is breast implant exposure, infection, and loss secondary to wound breakdown; excessively large implants or too much tension during closure are possible contributing factors. We describe a technique for augmentation-mastopexy combining a muscle-splitting pocket for implant placement along with an inferior flap, which helps secure the implant in place and provides coverage in case of wound dehiscence. A retrospective chart review was performed (January 2015 to December 2017) of women who underwent augmentation-mastopexy with round, textured silicone gel implants using a muscle-splitting technique combined with an inferior de-epithelialized dermoglandular flap. A total of 118 patients (236 breasts) were operated on. Mean follow-up was 13 months (10–42 months). Mean patient age was 33.3 years (24–55 years). Mean operative time was 102.9 minutes (80–135 minutes), and implant size ranged from 175 to 350 mL (mode, 275 mL). There were no cases of implant extrusion, nipple-areola complex ischemia, or surgical site infection; however, 1 patient required revision surgery for implant malposition, and 2 had a postoperative hematoma. In summary, the technique we describe combines 2 established mammaplasty techniques, ensuring upper pole fullness with good cleavage, implant protection in case of wound breakdown, and good patient satisfaction as evidenced by a low revision rate and minimal complications. Level of Evidence IV, therapeutic. Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention, such as case studies.