Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Abstract

Background: The muscle splitting technique is a submuscular pocket used for augmentation mammoplasty. Its use and results following primary and secondary procedures are presented. Methods: A retrospective study that analyzed complication and revision rates following primary and secondary mastopexy with augmentation in a muscle splitting pocket performed between April 2007 and March 2020 was carried out. Data were divided into two groups: primary and secondary single-stage mastopexies with augmentation. Results: A total of 169 patients had a primary procedure and 49 had secondary procedures. The mean ages of patients in the primary and secondary were 32.3 ± 9.89 and 38.2 ± 9.63 years, respectively. Five (3.0%) patients had periprosthetic or wound infections in the primary group when compared with 0% in secondary surgery group. Wound breakdown was seen in 13 (7.7%) patients with a primary procedure compared with one patient (2%) with a secondary procedure. One patient had partial nipple loss and another had total nipple loss in the primary group (1.2%) when compared with one patient (2.0%) who had partial nipple loss in the secondary group. Revision surgeries were carried out in 16 (10.1%) of the primary procedures compared with five (10.2%) of the secondary procedures. Conclusion: Even though there was a higher prevalence of complications in the primary procedures group than in the secondary procedures group, the overall complications following muscle splitting mastopexy with augmentation are within an acceptable range.

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

“…28,30 In both the layered and nonlayered mastopexy groups, patients are followed up for up to 2 years, as long-term complications related to implants are similar in the augmentation mammoplasty and augmentation mastopexy groups. 19,20,33 The most common reason for revisions in nonlayered group A was waterfall deformity following periareolar mastopexy with augmentation. Even with the use of a higher number of smooth implants since 2017, the capsular contracture rate in the layered (6.5%) group was lower than that in the nonlayered group (7.8%).…”

“…28,29 The pocket was also used for internal and external mastopexies. 21,[30][31][32][33] Later, modifications of the pocket design were reported by other authors for its use in internal mastopexy and to minimize lateral displacement in some cases. 23,31 MSBP also allows transaxillary approach, which has been used for primary and revision surgeries.…”

“…Subsequently, a 9- and 13-year follow-up showed complication rates of 11.1% and 13.1%, respectively, where revision surgeries were performed in 10.1% of primary procedures. 32 , 33 Since the introduction of mastopexy with augmentation in MSBP, small modifications have been continuously introduced and incorporated to reduce complications and revision rates in mastopexy with augmentation in MSBP. Introduction of cat’s tail modification to vertical scars, selection of incision based on preoperative nipple-areolar complex to inframammary crease measurements, limited use of periareolar markings for mastopexy, and finally‚ the use of layered mastopexy with augmentation have all contributed to reduced complication and revision rates and to achieve full potential of mastopexy with augmentation in MSBP.…”

Can a Breast Augmentation Procedure Improve the Appearance of Pectus Excavatum Deformity in Female Patients? A Prospective Study

“…For patients undergoing primary BA, the pinch test at the upper and the median pole of the breast was used as a guide to determine the appropriate surgical technique. Specifically, the subfascial technique was selected when the pinch test was more than 4 cm, and in all other cases, the dual-plane or muscle-splitting technique 14 was used. In most cases, the Tebbetts type I technique was used, while in pseudoptotic breasts, Tebbetts type II was chosen as the appropriate method.…”